(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Qualitative analysis of housing conditions, 1973, city of Gainesville, Florida"

XJKlti'-'" - ' — '■ — 

f^\ FLSAIachua 
.G142 
50 

1973/2 
C.2 



Fi: 



:2r 



Qualitative Analysis 

of 

Housing Conditions 



: 5. OF ^ I 

'^. \ FLORIDA ; ; 










I UNn/ERt!TY 



FLOHIDA 



if'^^ 






9 ^-- t^ 



UNIVERSITY <^\ 
OF •^\ 
FLORIDA / f 






.**"*/ 1973 

Gainesville, Florida 

j^cpartment of Community Development 



QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF HOUSING CONDITIONS, 197 3 
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 



DEPARTMEIMT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 

The preparation of this report was financed in part through a 
comprehensive planning grant from the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development. 
CPA FL-04-30-1018. 



I 
I 



n 



Cify Commission 

James G . Richardson, Mayor-Commissioner 

Richard T. Jones,* Mayor-Commissioner 

Neil A. Butler 

Courtland Collier* 

Joseph W. Little 

Russell W. Ramsey 

W. S. Talbot 

Plan Board 

Samuel Holloway, Chairman 
Michael Adams* 
Thomas Coward 
Dr. James W. Crews 
Dr. Ira J. Gordon 
John Jennings 
Forrest F. Lisle, Jr. 
Herrick Smith* 
N Mrs. Daniel Ward 



^ 
^ 






•J 



City Manager 
B. Harold Farmer 

Department of Community Development 
Norman J. Bowman, Director 
Dottie Hunt, Secretary III 

Planning Division 

Richard A. Kilby, Director 

Richard W. Collins, Planner III 

T. Jeff Browning, Planner II * 

Randolph A. Long, Planner II 

Daniel E. Slater, Planner II 

John V. Carlson, Planner I 

V. Miles Patterson, Planning Aide II 

Louie Wilson, Administrative Clerk 

Chaque L. Russell, Planning Aide I 

Elaine Fletcher, Secretary 11 

* Former Members 



w. 



BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA 
SHEET 



1. Report No. 

GF PCD 73 07. 



3. Recipient's Accession No. 



4. Title and Subtitle 



5- Report Date 

September, 1973 



6. 



Qualitative Analysis of Housin-g Conditions 



7. Author(s) 

See #9 below ; Daniel E. Slater, principal author 



8- Performing Organization Rept. 

^°"GF DCD 7 3 2 



9. Performing Organization Name and Address 

Planning Division 

Department of Corainunity Development 

Post Office Box 490 

Gainesville, Florida 32602 



10. Project/Task/Uork Unit No. 

402.0 



11. Contract /Grant No. 

CPA FL-04-30-1018 



12. Sponsoring Organiz.ation Name and Address 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 
Peninsular Plaza 
661 Riverside Avenue 
Jacksonville, Florida 32204 



13. Type of Report & Period 
Covered 

Final 



14. 



15. Supplementary Notes 



16. Abstracts i^^^-S Housing study highlights in detail the 
of the housing stock in the City of Gainesville. S 
valuable tool in identifying specific geographical 
tracts, enumeration districts, and most important, 
their housing conditions. An inventory was made of 
sisted housing programs completed and their vacancy 
is also given to the City's Housing Code Enforcemen 
tion to the examination of geographical areas, an a 
garding the general social and economic characteris 
population, particularly where the most blight appe 
here a high concentration of Black residents. Thes 
ously defined by several studies on housing conditi 
demand the most immediate attention. Lastly, sever 
references were utilized in thp prpparat-ion of -hb i c 



quality and quantity 
uch data serves as a 
areas by census 
by blocks, as to 
the federally as- 
ratios. Analysis 
t Program. In addi- 
nalysis is m.ade re- 
tics of the resident 
ars; there exists 
e areas, as previ- 
ons in the City,\7ill 
al m.ost important 
■Study. 



17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17a. Descriptors 



17b. Identifiers /Open-Ended Terms 

Housing (conditions, policy considerations, alternative programs) 



17c. COSATI Field/Group 



18. Availability Statement 

Available to the public from the National 
Technical Information Service, 2285 Port 
Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151 



19. Security Class (This 
Report) 

UNCLASSIFIFD 



20. Security Class (This 
Page 

UNCLASSIFIED 



21. No. ot Pages 

113 



22. Price 



FORM NTIS-35 ( R E \/ . 3-72) 



USCOMM-DC 14952-P72 



11 



p 
p 

p 

p 
f 



i 



) 



QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF HOUSING CONDITIONS, 1973 
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 



Table of Contents 

Page 
Abstract ii 

List of Tables vii 

List of Charts ix 

List of Maps X 

BACKGROUND xi 

City's Pursuit of Housing Goal 
Adoption of Minimum Housing Code 
Creation of Housing Board 

Creation of Gainesville Housing Authority 
I. INTRODUCTION 1 

II. SUMMARY 2 

III. PURPOSE AND METHOD OF ANALYSIS 3 

A. Field Survey 

1. Evaulation of structural conditions 

2. Evaluation of plumbing conditions 

3. Evaluation of electrical conditions 

B. Rating Scale 

1. Promote reliability and objectivity 

2. Minimize subjectivity and inconsistency 

IV. QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF HOUSING CONDITIONS 5 

A. Selection of Geographical Problem Areas 6 

1. Enumeration district analysis 
a. Planning district origin 



111 



T 

ft 



Page 
b. Neighborhood housing conditions 

(1) Age of units 

(2) Type of construction 

(3) Quality of construction 

(4) Density or concentration 

(5) Home-owner or renter maintenance 

2. Census tract analysis (1970 Census Data) H 

a. Social and economic characteristics 20 

(1) Housing 

(2) Population 

(3) Poverty status of families, house- 
holds and persons 

b. Environmental quality of census tracts 24 

(1) Concentration 

(2) Overcrowding 

(3) Sanitary facilities 

(4) Street condition 

(5) Street lighting 

c. Blight defined 27 

(1) Absentee ownership 

(2) Piousing shortage 

(3) Ineffective codes 

(4) Lack of services 

(5) Mixed land uses 

B. Detailed Evaluation of Housing Quality 29 

1. Enumeration Districts 

2. Blocks 37 



IV 



f 



V 



1 fj 



I 

f 

i 

IP 
i 






/ 



V. COMPARISON OF HOUSING CODE ENFORCH^IENT RESULTS 44 

A. Housing Survey (1972) 

1. Quantity of units 

2. Quality of units 

B. Housing Survey (1969) 45 

1. Number of substandard units 

2. Breakdown by condition 

C. Neighborhood Analysis Study (1965) 44 

1. Standard units 

2. Substandard units 

VI. HOUSING AVAILABILITY 48 

A. Subsidized Housing: Low and Moderate Income 49 

1. Housing Board's conclusions 

2. Subsidized projects completed and vacancy 
statuses 

a. City 

(1) Public 

(2) Rent supplement and interest 
subsidy 

b. County 

3. Poverty status of families and households 

a. Families receiving public assistance 
income 

b. Median dollar value of housing unit 

c. Median gross rent 

d. Families with female head 

B. State's Role 55 
1. Housing in Florida Research Report (1973) 



1/ 



I 



Page 
2. Five (5) Strategies 
C. Alternative Programs in Housing • 55 

1. Kansas City Plan 

2. Ohio Fair-Share Plan 

3 . New Towns 

VII. COMPARISON OF HOUSING STUDIES RESULTS 59 

A. North Central Florida Regional Planning 
Council (1972) 

B. Housing Division, City of Gainesville (1972) 

C. U. S. Bureau of the Census (1970) 

VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND SOME PRELIMINARY POLICY CONSIDERA- 
TIONS 6 3 

IX. RECOMMENDATIONS 66 

References 68 

Agencies Interviewed and Major Contributors 71 

Appendix A 72 

Appendix B 85 



VI 



n 






PI 

III 

Hi 



Tables 

Number Page 

I. Summary of Quality and Quantity of Housing 

Conditions (City) , 1973 5 

II Average Housing Condition of City Per Enumera- 
tion Districts, 1973 7 

III Structural Characteristics (Age) of Housing 

Units for Selected Census Tracts, 1973 12 

IV Dwelling Characteristics of Selected Census 

Tracts, 1973 13 

V Racial Composition of Census Tracts, 1970 15 

VI Average Housing Condition Per Census Tract, 

1973 16 

VII General Housing Characteristics for City, 

1950, 1960, 1970 22 

VIII Percentages Overcrowded and Plumbing Deficient 

Units for Census Tracts, 1970 25 

IX Dilapidated Housing Above City's Average (0.2%) 

Per E.D. , 1973 31 

X Major Repair Housing Above City's Average (3.1%) 

Per E.D. , 1973 32 

XI Minor Repair Housing Above City's Average (2.0%) 

Per E.D. , 1973 33 

XII Standard Housing with Minor Defects Above City's 

Average (11.1%) Per E.D., 1973 34 

XIII Standard Housing Below City's Average (84%) Per 

E.D., 1973 35 

XIV Rank of Enumeration Districts by Various Housing 

Conditions, 1973 38 

XV Rank of Ten E.D.'s with Housing Averages Greater 
than (Ratings 1-4) and Less Than (Rating 5) the 
City's Average (Mean), 1973 39 

XVI Comparison of Quality and Quantity of Housing 

Conditions in City (1965-1972) 46 



XVII Low and Moderate Income Plousing Completed in 
City, 1973 



50 



VI 1 



i 



Number Page 

XVIII Vacancy Status for Low and Moderate Income 

Housing for City, 1973 51 

XIX Comparison of Dwelling Unit Counts by U. S. 
Census Bureau and Gainesville's Building 
Permits, 1973 54 

XX Comparison of Dwelling Unit Counts in Census 
Tracts by Housing Division, U. S. Census 
Bureau and North Central Florida Regional 
Planning Council for the City of Gainesville, 
1973. 62 

Appendix Tables 

1 Housing Condition of City and Enumeration 
Districts by Units, 1973 73 

2 Neighborhood Designation Descriptions, 19 65 74 

3 Poverty Status in 1969 of Families and Persons: 
1970. 75 

4 Poverty Status in 1969 of Black Families and 
Persons: 1970 78 

5 Incom.e Characteristics of the Population: 1970 81 

6 Economic Characteristics of the Black Population; 
1970 (Census Tracts with 400 or More Black Popula- 
tion) 82 

7 Financial Characteristics of Housing Units Py 
Census Tracts: 1970 83 

8 Financial Characteristics of Housing Units with 
Black Head of Household: 1970 (Census Tracts 

with 400 or More Black Population) 84 

9-21 General Housing Characteristics by Census Tracts: 

1970 86 

22 Housing Condition Percentages of Enumeration 

Districts and City, 1973 99 



Vlll 



Charts 

Page 

Chart 1 Range of Dilapidated Units (%) - 36 

Chart 2 Range of Major Repair Units (%) 36 

Chart 3 Range of Minor Repair Units (%) 36 

Chart 4 Range of Minor/Slightly Defected Units (%) 36 

Chart 5 Range of Standard Units (%) 36 



IX 



Maps 
Number Page 

1 Enumeration Districts with Average Housing 
Condition Below City Mean (4.8), 1973 8 

2 Planning Districts, City of Gainesville, 1965 9 

3 Housing Conditions, City of Gainesville, 1965 10 

4 Planning District I, City of Gainesville, 1965 11 
5. Planning District V, City of Gainesville, 1965 14 

6 Census Tracts with Average Housing Condition 17 
Ratings Below City Mean (4.8), 1973 

7 Planning District VI, City of Gainesville, 1965 19 

8' Corporate and Population Growth, City of Gaines- 
ville, 1853-1973 23 

9 Average Housing Condition by Enumeration 

Districts, 1973 30 

10-13 Rating of Housing Condition by Blocks, 1973 40-43 

14 Residential Structural Ratings for the City of 

Gainesville, 1972 ^ 61 

Appendix Maps 

I Census Tracts, Gainesville Urban Area, 1970 100 

II Generalized Housing Conditions, 1967. A Survey 

by the Alachua County Health Department. loi 



1/1 



n 



M 



l( 



? 



BACKGROUND 



For the past several years, the City of Gainesville has 
maintained an active program in pursuit of the goal of a 
decent and suitable living environment for all 'its citizens. 
This action has been launched primarily through the enforce- 
ment of the City's minimiumi Housing Code and the provision of 
federally subsidized housing. 

In 1964, the City adopted a minimum Housing Code, and instituted 
a systematic housing enforcement program in 1966. Along with 
the adoption of the Housing Code, a Housing Board was established 
to study and make recomjnendations on housing problems and needs 
in the City. 

The City Commission in 1966 approved an emergency resolution 
creating the Gainesville Housing Authority. This was the 
Local Public Agency (LPA) , charged with the responsibilities 
of construction and maintenance of public housing. The resolu- 
tion also approved the appointment of Commissioners of the 
Gainesville Housing Authority. 



XI 



r 






CHAPTER I 



INTRODUCTION 

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF HOUSING CONDITIONS 
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 



The housing study highlights the detailed findings on the 
existing quality and quantity of dvelling units v/ithin the 
City of Gainesville. The primary or major data for analysis 
was provided through the inspection records of the Housing 
Division, Department of Community Developmient . 

Mobile homes are included in the total number of housing units 
surveyed. This type of housing makes up a small proportion of 
the City's total housing stock, and the m.ajority of it is found 
in sound condition. 

Although there has been a significant decrease in the total 
number of substandard dv;elling units in the City from. 1965 
to 1972, there has not been an adeauate increase in the total 
numiber of housing units constructed for low and moderate in- 
comte families and households for the sam.e period. 

The "housing problem" (programs) must be dealt with in total 
spectrum, that is, in the social, economic and political arenas, 
v:hich are inseparable. It is important ro keep in m.ind, V7hile 
reading this housing study, that housing is directly related 
to several environmental and social factors, such as mental 
health and deliquency. In addition, it has also been pointed 
out in several research studies that there is a direct correla- 
tion between housing and other social ills. These include 
poverty, chronic diseases, overcrowding, crimie and unemploy- 
ment, etc. Such factors will be given a more detailed analysis 
in the Environmental and Social Indicator Study , also just 
completed by the Department of Comm.unity Developm.ent. 

No data is provided for Census Tract 9 because it contains 
only the University of Florida's housing. Census Tract 13 
is not included because it contains housing that is owned by 
the State for use by the Dersonnel of Sunland Training Center. 
Tracts 14 and 15 are not included, v:hereby, they are not a 
part of the City of Gainesville. 



CHAPTER II 

SUMMARY 

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF HOUSING CONDITIONS, 1973 
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 



Looking at the City's physical housing stock as a whole does 
not in itself create cause for alarm, for it is found that 34 
percent is standard and 11 percent with minor or slight defects 
(conservation housing) . This qualitative analysis of housing 
was directed toward the 5.2 percent that is substandard. This 
consists of 2 percent needing minor repair, 3 percent needing 
major repair, and 0.2 percent dilapidated. Detailed examina- 
tion of this latter category revealed that the most blighted 
neighborhoods have remained basically the same over the past 
years . 

In addition, the average (mean) physical condition of dwelling 
units in the City v/as found to be 4.8 , that is standard, when 
rated on a scale of 1 through 5. The significance of these 
findings becomes apparent when compared with the averages 
(means) and percentages of housing conditions by auality with 
each enumeration district and each block. 

Sixteen of the City's forty (40) enumeration districts 
surveyed had an average (mean) housing condition which fell 
below the City's mean of 4.8. By isolating these enumeration 
districts, attention was directed toward the specific auality 
of housing therein. In using this m.ethod, it was possible to 
pinpoint areas dem.anding the most immediate attention. (SEE 
MAP 1) 

The enumeration districts (E.D.'s) v;hich have the greatest 
amount of dilapidated, deteriorated and/or aged housing units 
when compared with the City's total housing stock are as 
folloivs: E.D. 1618 with 2.7 percent dilapidated housing, 
E.D. 1657 with 25.2 percent housing needing major repair, 
E.D. 1649 with 15.6 percent housing needing minor repair, 
E.D. 1648 with 63.6 percent housing with manor or slight 
defects and E.D. 16 4 8 with only 12 percent standard housing. 

There were four (4) Census Tracts whose overall average housing 
condition fell below the City's average (m.ean) of 4.8. Ranked 
in order, they include tracts 1, 6, 7, and 2. For all practical 
purposes, these might be considered the most blighted census 
tracts. Tracts 5, 3, 4, 12, and 8 in order, fall with the 
average range of 4.8 to 4.9. The remaining tracts 10, 17, 16, 
and 11 by ranked order, all had a rating of 5. 

Lastly, it should be pointed out that census tracts are not 
in every case homogeneous geographical units and that a 
diversity of housing conditions may be found within any given 
tract. Such diversity of housing conditions by enumeration 
district and by blocks has been the focal point of this study. 



CHAPTER III 

PURPOSE AND METHOD OF ANALYSIS 



The primary purpose of this study is to aid the City's decision- 
makers in analyzing and devising housing policies and programs 
in the City. This study approach entails the following: 

(1) Objectively evaluating the physical condition 
of the community's housing stock by examining 
the results of the Housing study (1972) as 
conducted by the North Central Florida Regional 
Planning Council (NCFRPC) , the 1970 Census of 
Housing and Population, and the inspection 
records (1972) of the Housing Division, Depart- 
ment of Community Development. 

(2) Comparing the results of these three (3) 
elemients in order to further justify the 
narrowing of attention to more specific 
geographic problem areas. 

In order to better determine the number, type and condition 
of dwelling units within the City of Gainesville, the housing 
inspection records, together with a field survey of the 
exterior condition of dwellings, was conducted by the Housing 

Division, Department of Community Development. 

To minimize subjectivity and inconsistency, the survey inspec- 
tors were instructed to evaluate only the structural, plumbing, 
and electrical conditions of each dwelling unit and to avoid 
considering any other physical environment deficiencies (such 
as trash on the premise, lack of adequate landscaping and 
buffering between adjacent structures, inappropriate setback 
requirements, etc.). A numerical ratingl of 1 to 5 was 
assigned to each dwelling unit. These ratings are described 
as follows: 

(1) Denotes a totally inhabitable unit; a dilapi-' 
dated structure, or one that does not provide 
adequate shelter and is a serious detriment to 

the health, safety and well-being of the occupants. 

(2) Denotes an inhabitable unit if major repairs 
are performied or v.-here one or miore of the 
following is needed: correction of a sag or 
lean of a structure; reroofing; reflooring; 



1 The 1 to 5 scale is generally used by social scientists as 
an optimal scale (Delbert C. Miller Handbook of Research 
Design and Social Measurement ^ 2nd edition. New York: David 
McKay Company, Inc., 1970, p. 96) 

All other footnotes are listed in the Table of References. 



If' 
11 
11' 



complete resurfacing of interior walls or ceilings; 
replacement of load bearing members; major addi- 
tions to dwellings; complete rewiring; installa- 
tion of additional outlets or fixtures; connec- 
tion to city sanitary sewage system. 

(3) Denotes a deteriorating condition but the structure 
is still inhabitable as long as minor repairs are 
performed; minor rehabilitation would probably be 
recommended under this classification. Minor 
repairs would include one or more of the following: 
repair of a minor nature to the electrical system; 
repair or replacement of plumbing fixtures (tub, 
shower, lavatory, flush toilet, water heater); 
repair of a minor nature of structural portions 
not to include bearing members such as leaks in 
roof; replacement of rotted or damaged boards in 
the flooring and/or exterior walls; repair holes 

in interior walls and ceilings; repair broken 
windows, doors, screens; and minor repair to 
porch or steps . 

(4) Denotes a structure that has only minor or slight 
defects which should be repaired as a part of 
normal and adequate maintenance (such as lack 

of closet or floor space) but is one that meets 
the absolute minimum code requirements. 

(5) Denotes a structure that has no defects at all; 
a unit that surpasses the minimum code require- 
ments . 

Numbers four (4) and five (5) would aid in delineating conserva- 
tion districts. 

The prim^ary purpose for using the 1 to 5 rating scale was to 
promote reliability (i.e. the scaling system should be suf- 
ficiently precise, clear, and simple so that all persons 
using the procedure would achieve the same results). In 
addition, it afforded sufficiently adeauate dem.arcations by 
being broad enough to cover the entire spectrum of conditions, 
but narrow enough to be able to classify "condition" of 
dwelling units as consistently and objectively as possible. 
If a larger range v^ere provided (say 1 to 100), a greater 
possibility for divergence by raters would occur, thus 
promoting subjectivity and discouraging consistency and 
reliability. Provision of numerical representations would 
also aid the computerizing of results. 

This particular scoring system also provides a means of 
determining the percentage of structures receiving a 
rating of 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 for each district. These results, 
when compared with the results of the NCFRPC ' s Housing Study 
(1972) and the 1970 Census of Population and Housing, will 
be used in determcining significant and specific geographic 
housing problem areas. 



CHAPTER IV 



QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF HOUSING CONDITIONS 
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 



After an examination of the existing physical or structural 
characteristics of housing within the City of Gainesville, 
it was found that 84 percent of the dwelling units are 
standard or surpass the minimum Flousing Code requirements. 
By combining this proticn of housing with the 11 percent 
that is standard but with minor of slight defects, it may 
be said the 95 percent of the City's housing stock is stand- 
ard, while 5 percent is substandard. Of the substandard 
dwelling units 0,2 percent are dilapidated, 3 percent need 
major repair and 2 percent need minor repair. (SEE TABLE I) 

Considering the total number of housing units by condition 
for each enum>eration district, the findings show that on an 
average there is 1.0 dilapidated, 15.4 needing major repair, 
and 10.0 needing minor repair, per enumeration district. 
(SEE TABLE I, APPENDIX A) 

Further analysis revealed that the average condition per 
dwelling unit in the City is 4.8, i.e. standard, v;hen com- 
pared to the scale of 1 to 5, as mentioned in the method- 
ology of study. These and the above findings become even 
more significant when compared v;ith the specific housing 
conditions in each enumeration district of the City. 

TABLE I 

SUr4I4ARY OF QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF HOUSING CONDITIONS, 1973 

CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 

Total 

Units %_ 

All Housing in City 20,492 100.0 

Combined Standard 19,410 94.7 

Standard 17,143 83.6 

With Minor or Slight Defect 2,267 11.1 

Substandard 1,082 5.3 

Dilapidated 42 0.2 

Needing .Major Repair 631 3.1 

Needing Minor Repair 409 2.0 

Source: Compiled by the Planning Division, Department of 
Comraunity Development from the inspection records 
of the Housing Division, City of Gainesville, Florida 



Of the 1,040 dwelling units in need of rehabilitation (i.e., 
major and minor repair) it is estimated by the Housing Division 
that at least 10 percent or 104 are of sufficient worth to 
warrant rehabilitation. The cost of rehabilitating "major 
repair" housing units is estimated to range from $500 to as 
high as $6,000. This is dependent on whether the unit needs 
major roofing, wiring, etc. To bring most "minor repair" 
housing up to the City's Housing Code, it is estimated that 
it would cost between $0 and $500. Such work would involve 
repair of a leaking roof, steps, painting, etc. The cost 
of clearing a building ranges from $200 to $500. Dilapidated 
housing, as is obvious, would be beyond repair. It is impor- 
tant to note that labor costs, more so than building materials, 
have the major bearing on the minimum cost of repair. 



Selection of Geographical Problem. Areas 

Enumeration District Analysis 



In this analysis, not only is attention focused on the number 
of standard dwellings but also the number that are substandard. 
These numbers will be considered in light of their enumeration 
districts and as to how they compare with the City's average 
(means). From this point, comparisons will be made as to how 
the average housing condition rating for a given block compares 
with that of the City. It v/as hoped that this would provide 
for the most objective and reliable evaluation. 

In this study the enumeration district becomes a major unit 
of analysis. Enumeration districts are sm.all areas into which 
census tracts have been divided for statistical purposes. 

Using the procedure of comparing each enumeration district with 
the City's means of 4.8, it v/as possible to isolate those areas 
of the City maintaining the greater degree of deteriorated and 
dilapidated housing, i.e. blight. Close examination revealed 
that there were sixteen (16) of a total of forty (40) enumera- 
tion districts studied that fell below the City's mean of 4.8. 
These districts, distinguished and ranked by their means are 
included in Table II. The accompaning m.ap (Map 1) illuminates 
the sixteen areas. 

From this point, it was possible to m.ore specifically identify 
the areas of deteriorated and dilapidated housing. Three (3) 
enumeration districts show average housing conditions ranking 
less that 4, that is, standard housing v/ith only minor or 
slight structural defects. Further attention is given to these 
areas as each enumeration district is examined. Identified and 
ranked by their average housina condition, they are enumeration 
districts 1657, 1648, and 1644". 



I 

I 



r^ 



LI 



TABLE II 

AVERAGE HOUSING CONDITION BY ENUMERATION DISTRICTS, 1973 
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 







Total 








Total 






E.D. 


Units 


Mean 




E.D. 


Units 


Mean 


(1) 


1657 


139 


3.6 


(21) 


1624 


577 


4.9 


(2) 


1648 


360 


3.7 


(22) 


1626 


950 


4.9 


(3) 


1644 


939 


3.9 


(23) 


1633 


319 


4.9 


(4) 


1660 


326 


4.0 


(24) 


16 34 


179 


4.9 


(5) 


1649 


275 


4.1 


(25) 


1652 


407 


5.0 


(6) 


1654 


347 


4.4 


(26) 


1619 


736 


5.0 


(7) 


1656 


733 


4.4 


(27) 


1621 


400 


5.0 


(8) 


1659 


321 


4.4 


(28) 


1627 


725 


5.0 


(9) 


1618 


. 74 


4.6 


(29) 


1628 


660 


5.0 


(10) 


1653 


26 


4.6 


(30) 


1629 


760 


5.0 


(11) 


1655 


l,3f^4 


4.6 


(31) 


1630 


546 


5.0 


(12) 


1635 


562 


4.7 


(32) 


1631 


411 


5.0 


(13) 


1640 


46 


4.7 


(33) 


1632 


590 


5.0 


(14) 


1645 


369 


4.7 


(34) 


1641 


627 


5.0 


(15) 


1658 


807 


4.7 


(35) 


1642 


965 


5.0 


(16) 


1661 


313 


4.7 


(36) 


1643 


510 


5.0 


(17) 


1622 


729 


4.8 


(37) 


1646 


481 


5.0 


(18) 


1625 


507 


4.8 


(38) 


1647 


761 


5.0 


(19) 


1620 


701 


4.9 


(39) 


1650 


80 


5.0 


(20) 


1623 


548 


4.9 


(40) 


1651 
CITY 


322 
20,49 2 


5.0 
4.8 



Source: Inspection records of the Housing Division, City of 
Gainesville . 



[I 



[ 

r 



ri 



8 




(D 

z 
< 

>- 

t 




< 



q: 



J 
ii. 





CD ^ o 



z 



h 

Q 

z 






z 

CD 

D 



I 



> 



z 
< 





• ^ 2 = y 

I b H ^ H 
O 'J O Cj 

o c5 H a 
I" s;5 



j; ;^ .-^ rJ ' 



In an attempt to explain the quality of housing in these 
enumeration districts, attention might be focused on what 
generally are five (5) major indications of housing conditions: 

(1) Age of unit, 

(2) Type of construction (e.g. frame or brick), 

(3) Quality of construction (shoddy or superior) , 

(4) Density or concentration, and 

(5) Home-owner or renter maintenance of housing unit. 

Prior to the 1970 Census, housing in the City of Gainesville 
was studied in relation to planning districts because Census 
Tracts had not been designated. For comparative purposes 
attention is drawn to the most important three (3) of the eleven 
(11) districts outlined in the Gainesville Neighborhood Analysis 
study (1965) 27 _ (g^E MAP 2) As v/as noted in this study, gen- 
erally areas with the sam.e designation have residents v/ith 
similar life styles. Adding to that, although certain charac- 
teristics such as income and employment m.ay be sim.ilar, for 
purposes of description, the White and Black areas were 
identified separately. Appendix Table 2 describes the types 
of housing and major non-residential areas which were designated, 



-mte 




^^i?f^^i^^>^ 






MAP 2 



PLANNING DISTRICTS 
CITY OF GAINESVILLE:, FLORIDA 





"IS «H151 3 

.\ - > 






CM 

It 




z 


'IS NIVW"^ 


V 


^.^ 









'■"^"-'V"'- "l^'r? 








(0 




z 









h 




Q 




z 


10 





0. 





< 




5 









.* t. 









!S»i:, 



' j';.; 



._-<? 






V. "IS M19-|/A 
















1^- f 




i \ 



'iS^XiUZZ M 




V.-- 



r-''?^'<9^ 




1":"*^^ — 




^•v.: 



"is aact' M 



i 



Census Tract Analysis 

Evaluated first, both E.D.'s 1648 and 1644 fall within Census 
Tract 2. It lies in North Gainesville, west of Main Street. 
An examination of the 1970 Census reveals that .78 percent of 
the housing stock for Tract 2 was built before 1959. (SEE 
TABLE III) The majority of housing in this tract are frame 
units . 

It is assumed that some units were not adequately constructed. 
Coleman and Gutheim submit, in a paper prepared for the 1949 
Conference on Family Life, that for both new and remodeled 
buildings, standards of space, design, and construction were 
critically lowered as a result of the war conditions and post- 
war years. These conditions, they point out, aggravated the 
problem of blight in m.ost American cities. 26 This could be a 
most significant factor when we look at the home-owner or 
renter maintenance of such units; wherein, many are inhabited 
by families or households receiving public assistance of 
various forms. (SEE APPE^TDIX TABLES 3 AND 4) 

According to the Gainesville Neighborhood Analysis (19 65) , 
E.D.'s 1644 and 1648, located in Planning District I, (neighbor- 
hood designations 8-a and 8-b, respectively) , are the oldest 
Black neighborhoods in the City, dating back to the 1890 's. 
(SEE r4AP 4) 




MAP A 

PLANNING 
DISTRICT I 



TMC pwp>»^»riO'* or rrnt 

H*P "Ai FtNA.i.C£D Vt PAJIT 

DiPAj^TMENT OP HTCiSiNO 
AMD UTkMAIt DCVXLO/MAMT. 



11 



. TABLE III 

STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS (AGE) OF HOUSING UNITS 
FOR SELECTED CENSUS TRACTS, 197 ' .' 

CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 

Year Average (Mean) 

Tract Structure Built Units %_ Housing Condition 

March 1970-1960 

1 1959-1939 or 4.10 
earlier 279 100 

Total 279 100 

March 1970-1960 534 21.96 

2 1959-1939 or 4.46 
earlier 1,898 78.04 

Total 2,432 100 

March 1970-1960 807 32.71 

3 1959-1939 or 4.85 
earlier 1,660 67.29 

Total 2,467 100 

March 1970-1960 198 IC.Ol 

5 1959-1939 or 4.80 
earlier 1,780 89.99 

Total 1,978 100 

March 1970-1960 713 54.57 

6 1959-1939 or 4.20 
earlier 596 45.53 

Total 1,309 100 

March 1970-1960 1,089 60.7 

7 1959-1939 or 4.45 
earlier 705 39.3 

Total 1,794 100 

Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and 
Housing: 1970 Census Tracts , Gainesville, Florida; 
Inspection Records of the Housing Division, City of 
Gainesville . 



^7 



Coleman and Gutheim further state that once the inhabitants of 
such blighted areas had a "reasonable choice" in the housing 
market, they would facilitate flight from the city. Such, on 
any large scale, has yet to occur in these neighborhoods. 

The description further states that these older neighborhoods 
have many housing and environm.ental problems. _ In addition, it 
points out that although most residents have lov/ incomes, there 
are also middle income and professional people living here. 
The majority of the lov; incom.e residents v/ork for the University 
of Florida, the iMedical Center, Sunland Training Center, the 
Veterans Administration and in other labor and household services 
A more detailed employment study would be necessary to determ.ine 
exact numbers of this labor force by occupational categories. 

There are several small businesses in the area, but there is 
no large scale development by Blacks in a commercial/retail 
sense and an absence of adequate open space and recreational 
facilities. The dominant dwelling type for Census Tract 2 may 
be characterized as high density (i.e. the area contains a 
large numiber of single family apartments) renter-occupied. 
(SEE TABLE IV) The racial composition for this tract, as 
reported by the 1970 Census, shov-s 45.7 percent of the residents 
were Black. (SEE TABLE V) The average housing condition rating 
for Census Tract 2 is 4.5, as comipared to the City's average 
of 4.8. Table VI ranks the average residential dwelling condi- 
tion for each census tract in the City. (SEE MAP 6) 



TABLE IV 

DV7ELLIiNlG CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED CENSUS TRACTS, 197 3 
CITY OF GAIMESVILLE, FLORIDA 



Census Tract Total Units Dominant Dwelling Type 

1 275 Medium density commercial and 

industrial 

2 2,910 High density renter-occupied 

6 2,236 High density owner-occupied 

7 1,767 Medium density owner-occupied 

7,188 

Source: Compiled by the Planning Division, Departm.ent of 
Community Development from, the 1970 Census Of 
Housing and Population and the inspection records 
of the Housing Division (1972) . 



13 



The second area of comparison lies in East Gainesville, east 
of Waldo Road. E.D.'s 1655, 1656, and 1657 are located in 
Planning District V, (neighborhood designations 6-f , U-c, and 
8-d,.., respectively) all falling within Census Tract 6. (SEE 
MAP 5) Notably, 46 percent of the dwellings here were built 
before 1959. The Neighborhood Analysis study characterizes 
neighborhood designation 8-d the same as the two E.D.'s 
previously mentioned, that is, one of the older ones for 
Black residents, dating back to the 1890 's. It should be 
noted, however, that recently new construction has been evident 
in this area. 











I ill iifii-Sr ■ - ^- - ^ — , 






r" 




MAP B 

PLANNING 
DISTRICT 



THE PREPARATtON OF THIS 
MAP WAS FINANCED IN PART 
THROUGH A COMFREHENSIVK 
PLANNING GRANT FROM THB 
DEPAHTHENT OF HOUSING 
AND UHBAN DZTVELOPMSMT. 



14 



L 











J^ 




o 


00 


I— 1 


00 




1-1 


■^ 


•^ 


•-t 


> 


in 


o 


o 




+J 


•. 








■H 


^ 


CN 


(N 




U 


vo 


lO 


■H 






r^ 


n 


t-l 


1 


^•^ 


ro 


CN 






r~ ■ 


n 


ro 







(0 

-a 









in 


in 


in 


o 


rH 






,-^ 


r-H 


00 






fa 






vo 


in 


•<;r 












i-H 


^ 


^ 














M 


ro 




ro 


0) 

.H 
•H 








n 


ro 


00 


o 


> 






.^■^ 


iH 


o 






m 






CN 


m 


ro 






0) 






rH 


- 


•. 






c 








CN 


CN 




iH 


•H 

m 








C^ 


VO 


CN 


O 


» 






,^-* 


CN 


iH 






CO 






rH 


O 


O 






4J 






iH 


*. 


•• 






O 








CN 


CN 




VD 


(0 

Eh 








a, 


00 


^ 


C 


W 






. — * 


o 


r-n 


ro 




3 






O 


00 


r~ 






CO 






iH 


«. 


•. 






c 








in 


in 




a, 










00 


t^ 


c^, 


c 


o 








C^l 


ro 


•«3' 




t~- 






, — « 


VO 


IT 






cn 






C» 


^ 


V 






<-i 




o 


'*-' 


T 


■"a- 










r^ 












,, 




m 










r» 


D- 




■H 










• 


C 








r~ 


CO 


O 


rH 


■H 




*k 




cyi 


<y\ 


o 


00 


cn 




W 


>-^ 


CTi 


o 


CJ^ 




D 




tH < 


r^ 


*. 


>. 


^ 




O 




U Q 


■*-^ 


in 


—1 


•^ 




X 




gs 










ro 


^3 




Eh O 










• 


C 




kI 




vo 


VD 


in 


r- 


03 




W fa 




1— 1 


O 


o 


r- 






D 


^^ 


o 


<y\ 


.H 




C 




w - 


U3 


K 




^ 









2 W 


■*-^ 


rr 




ro 




•iH 


> 


U 1^ 










er> 


■U 

(0 


w 


M 










• 


rH 


tJ 


fa > 




o 


r~ 


■"a* 


rH 


3 


ca 


O W 




•^ 


CN 


<T1 




a 


< 


w 


,— % 


c\ 


00 









Eh 


S 2 


in 


^ 


«. 






04 




O M 


^■^ 


"a- 


rf 










M < 












M-l 




Eh O 










VO 







M 
















W fc, 




o 


r^ 


lO 


o 


m 




O O 




vo 


o 


ro 




D 




& 


^-N 


in 


in 






(0 




S >< 


■<a* 


•. 


«, 






a 




O Eh 


^-^ 


ID 


in 






0) 




U H 












u 




U 










in 






pJ 












^ 




< 




iH 


o 


o 


ro 


cn 




M 




in 


o 


o 




3 




u 


<— ^ 


CTi 


r~ 


(N 




(0 




g 


n 


- 


^ 






C 




**^ 


in 


in 






0) 
















u 














r-» 


Q) 








^ 


'a- 


r- 


m 


x: 








ro 


r~ 


o 


•"a- 


■p 






--^ 


M 


(N 


CO 










CN 


^ 


•. 


«. 




IM 








vo 


ro 


CN 


o 


o 

D 
(0 






^^ 


ro 


o 


00 


o 









nH 


CTv 


rH 


p~ 


ro 


^ 








in 

m 

c 


m 
M 

(U 

1^ 


T 


M 


U 
It) 
1-1 
CD 

•P 

C 
0) 

u 


3 

m 

CO 

D 








H 


0) 


^ 


M 


u 








.H 


JJ 


o 


Q) 


u 








< 


•H 


(0 
.H 

03 


CU 


3 


w 



15 



liL 



. TABLE VI 

AVERAGE HOUSING CONDITION PER CENSUS TRACT*, 1973 
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 



Tract 

1 

6 

7 

2 

5 

3 

4 
12 

8 
10 
17 
16 
11 

CITY 



Total 

Units Mean 

275 4.10 

2,236 4.20 

1,767 4.45 

2.910 4.46 
1,182 4.80 
2,361 4.85 

1.911 4.88 
950 4.90 

2,148 4.93 

2,061 4.95 

660 5.0 

1,306 5.0 

725 5.0 

20,492 4.75 



Source: Compiled by the Planning Division, Department of 
Community Development from, the inspection records 
of the Housing Division, City of Gainesville, Florida, 



* Census Tract Numbers 9, 13, 14, and 15 do not contain any 
private housing, and thus were not included. 



16 



^ 



s 



f^%r^' 





A, 



rt 




O^ 



^^:^ iiillipiii^ v^a. 







i^i; 



■o -'-i ; ■' i 



F_iI^'V 



!UjE?S;: 




n?i: 



:-»i 



'■Tvv 






-i Ct>. 




jZ>>-' 







;^— 1- 









< • 



f^ 



^4> 



<1 








t 



«, 5) 



^ffi M'^S^ 







^^,V 




x^^^^^^i^ 



<^. 






^ 



LLr 



H 



?:(/) 







II 



1 



1 



The first neighborhood designation, 6-f in the Neighborhood 
Analysis , is described as a Combination Neighborhood, such 
that characteristics of both established areas and informal 
suburban areas are comubined. The designation further states 
that these neighborhoods are primarily house working class 
families, often with small tov/n or rural backgrounds. The 
second designation, U-c, means it was undeveloped in 1965. 
Census Tract 6 or Planning District V also contains the neigh- 
borhood designation 7-a. This is the oldest suburban Black 
neighborhood. As the description states, the suburban areas 
were developed between 1957 and 1965, and are located adjacent 
to schools in the Southeast and Northeast. 

Housing in this suburban neighborhood was built under FHA 221 
(d) (3), (i.e., rental housing) and some was later acquired by the 
Gainesville Housing Authority v/hich was created in 1966. The 
area designated as U-c, in Planning District V, has subsequently 
been developed into a suburban neighborhood under FHA 235, (i.e., 
private-owner housing program) . These areas are serviced by 
small stores in the neighborhood, and adequate open space is 
absent. 

Census Tract 6 differs somev/hat from that of Census Tract 2, in 
that most of the housing here was built after that in Tract 2. 
The 19 70 Census shows approximately half, 46 percent, of the 
housing units in Tract 6 were built before 1959. The tracts 
are similar to the extent that both contain a majority of 
hoiising of frame construction. The dominant dwelling type for 
Census Tract 6 is high density owner-occupied, single family, 
and the tract is 77.3 percent Black. It scored an overall 
housing condition rating of 4.2 in the housing survey. 

Analysis also was given to the neighborhood designated C-a, in 

Planning District I or Census Tract 1. At the time of the study, 
100 percent of the units were built before 1959. The neighbor- 
hood designation states that the dominant dwelling type is 
medium density commercial. According to the Census, 30 percent 
of the population in Tract 1 is Black. This tract had an 
average housing condition rating of 4.10, compared to the City's 
average of 4.8. 

The next area for analysis. Planning District VI (neighborhood 
designation 8-e) lies within Census Tract 7. (SEE M^P 7) This 
neighborhood also is described as one of the older Black residences 

Notably, 39 percent of the dvrellings there v/ere constructed before 
1959. It is primarily medium density single family, owner-occu'-iied 
An attempt was m.ade for a planned ccmm.crcial/retail shopping center 
in Tract 7, which subseouentlv did not prove to be completely "suc- 
cessful. As was reported in the 1970 Census data, 81.7 percent 
of the population here is I lack. It was reported by the local 
FHA office that no additional federal funding of housing wi""] he 
allowed in Census Tracts 6 :'.nd 7. Table IV shows the dwelling 
characteristics of selected census tracts. 



18 



[ 

l[ 

r 



[I 






H 








z 




f^ — 


h 


a^ 





^z 


— 


'< 


SL 


J 


h 


Q. 


(0 



X "J « 

a. u B- 3 

< -> u O 

>« ^ i- S 1- 

H H 2 ^ I 

2 S ^ 5 g 

I- Q " 2 w 

-< uj ^: w a 

C 2 o- H g 

t- '^ 5 z = 

a t/' R O Q 

= 5 ^ « 5 

H 5 < cu ^ 




1 P 



r 

[ 



At this point, the geographical areas demanding the most con- 
centrated attention, have been located. In suimnary , they are 
listed below: 

Neighborhood 
Designations 




Enumeration 


•Districts 


1644 


1648 


1649 


1655 


1656 



1657 

8-e 1660 

These areas, as highlighted by the asterisk (*) on the City's 
Land Use Plan lAap ^ (1970) were to be given a more thorough and 
detailed analysis as stated in the Comprehensive Development 
Plan^ (1970) Gainesville Urban Area. More detailed attention 
is given these enumeration districts in this study. The areas 
listed above are essentially the same ones that were Dointed 
out by the Generalized Housing Conditions survey map (1967) 
by the Alachua County Health Department. (SEE APPENDIX MAP 2) 

So it becomes evident at this point that there is a definite 
correlation among the five factors m^entioned regarding the 
condition of housing in any city. These entail the following: 

(1) Age of unit, 

(2) Type of construction (frame or brick) , 

(3) Quality of construction (shoddy or superior) , 

(4) Density or concentration, and 

(5) Home-owner or renter m.aintenance of housing unit. 

It is important to keep these factors in mind as one looks at 
the overall complexion or quality of housing conditions in each 
of the specifically mentioned enumeration districts under con- 
centrated analysis. 

Social and Economic Housing Characteristics 

The 1970 Census provides useful data on the population and 
housing characteristics by census tracts. Reported also within 
the 1970 Census, is data that should be considered in the overall 



evaluation of this housing study. Such relates to income charac- 
teristics of the population, poverty status in 1969 of families, 
households and persons, and financial characteristics of housing 
units for the aforementioned census tracts. Separate data is 
provided on the characteristics for Blacks. (SEE APPENDIX 
TABLES 3-8) 

Table VII, General Housing Characteristics, show the occupancy, 
condition, and financial characteristics of housing units in 
the City for 1950, 1960, and 1970. After the 1960 Census, 
data was no longer furnished on housing condition. It is not 
possible to make comparisons of the incom.e characteristics of 
the population for 1950 and 1960 with that of the 1970 Census. 
The reason is that the City annexed an additional 20 square 
miles to its area of 5.0 square miles over this period. Such 
annexation occured shortly after the 1960 Census count. (For 
data on general housing characteristics by census tracts for 
1970, SEE APPENDIX TABLES 9-21). 

Map 8 shows the corporate and population growth of the City of 
Gainesville from 1853 to 1973. 



TABLE VII 

GENERAL HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS 
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 



1950 • 1960 1970 

OCCUPANCY 

All Housing Units 6,998 8,395 20,309 

All Occupied Units 6,742 7,749 18,777 

Owner Occupied 2,694 3,598 9,235 

Percent of all 

occupied 40.0% 46.4% 49.2% 

Cooperative or 



condominium 


— 


— 


5 


White 


2,079 


2,915 


7,733 


Black 


614 


683 


1,482 


Other races 


1 


- 


- 


Renter Occupied 


4,048 


4,151 


9,542 


White 


3,010 


2,946 


7,663 


Black 


1,036 


1,205 


1,777 


Other races 


2 


- 


- 


Non-Resident 








Dwelling Units 


7 


— 


- 


Vacant 


249 


646 


1,532 


CONDITION 









Sound 


4,942 
(70.6%) 


6,385 

(76.1%) 


Deteriorating 


1,120 

(16.0%) 


1,416 

(16.9%) 


Dilapidated 


936 
(13.4%) 


594 
(7.1%) 



FINANCIAL 
CHARACTERISTICS 



Median Dollar 








Value 


$8,832 


$13,000 


$15,800 


Median Contract 








Monthly Rent 


$ 54.90 


$ 61.00 


$ 95 


Median Gross 








Monthly Rent 


$ 41.90 


$ 59.00 


$ 68 



Source: Compiled by the Planning Division, Department of 
Community Development . -^^ ' ^^ ' -^^ 



22 



L 



I 



LEGEND 



1853 

1S69 

I907 

151 I95Q 

I960 

J 1962 

196V 

I I 1972 

SCALED I lIMCHa I MILE 



CORPORATE 




GROWTH 

POPULATION 




ieS3 275 

I900_ 3,64-* 

I9IO 6,IS3 

I920 6,a60 

I930 10,4-65 

I94-0 13,757 

I950 26,S6I 

I960 29,70l 

1967 60.000 25.9S 

1972 68,984- 26.25 



AREA 

.25 SQUARE MILES 
1.75 SQUARE MILES 
SQUARE MILES 
SQUARE MILES 
SQUARE MILES 
SQUARE MILES 
SQUARE MILES 
SQUARE MILES 
SQUARE MILES 
SQUARE MILES 



5.0 

5.0 
5.0 
5.0 
5.0 
6.5 



MAP 8 

AND POPULATION 



GROWTH 



GAINESVILLE , 



FLORIDA 



DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 



1973 



95 



Environmental Quality of Census Tracts 

Concentration, Overcrowding, and Sanitary Facilities 

The local FIIA office in Jacksonville made a decision in accord- 
ance with the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 
(HUD) housing policy as it related to racially impacted areas. 
The local offices indicated to developers that FHA will not 
allow or fund any further concentration of housing units under 
it federally subsidized housing programs within Census Tracts 
6 and 7, as previously mentioned. 

Four (4) of the City's thirteen (13) census tracts C^l, 2, 6, 
and 7) analyzed in this housing study contain 96.3 percent of 
the total Black population. Tracts 6 and 7 alone, located 
in the in Southeast and Northeast, contain 70.1 percent of the 
City's Black population. As reported in the 1970 Census, 18 
percent of the City's population is Black. (SEE TABLE V) 

With regards to overcrowding within Census Tracts 6 and 7, the 
latter shows the highest percentage, 17.2 percent, of its 1,794 
dwelling units with 1.01 or more persons per room, while in the 
former this is the case in 16.7 percent of its 1,309 dwellings. 
The 1970 Census reported the City with 6.3 percent of its 20,309 
dwellings with 1.01 or more persons per room. In terms of the 
total number of units lacking some or all plumbing facilities. 
Census Tract 6 reveals the highest percentage, 13.0 percent, 
while Tract 7 contains 12.8 percent, as compared with 4.0 per- 
cent for the City. 

It also may be noteworthy to point out that while the oldest 
developed neighborhoods in the City of Gainesville (in com- 
parison with later developed neighborhoods in Census Tracts 
6 and 7) fall within Census Tract 2, which shows 8.3 percent 
and 9.8 percent out of a total of 2,432 dwelling units that 
are overcrowded and lack some or all plumbing facilities, 
respectively. In any event, it may be concluded that generally 
neither overcrowding nor plumbing deficiencies (i.e. elements of 
blight) correlate with the age of the housing unit. (SEE TABLE 
VIII) 



24 



.TABLE VIII 

PERCENTAGES OF OVERCROPPED AND PLUMBING DEFICIENT UNITS 

FOR CENSUS TRACTS, 19 7 
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 



Census Number % Number % Total 

Tract Overcrov/ded Overcrowded Deficient Deficient Units 



1 


17 


5.7 


16 


5.4 


296 


2 


201 


8.3 


238 


9.8 


2,432 


3 


84 


3.4 


29 


5.8 


2,467 


4 


76 


4.8 


9 


0.6 


1,597 


5 


58 


3.0 


25 


1.3 


1,960 


6 


218 


16.17 


170 


13.0 


1,309 


7 


309 


17.2 


229 


12.8 


1,794 


8 


110 


5.8 


2 


0.1 


1,896 


10 


48 


2.1 


72 


3.2 


2,242 


11 


7 


1.2 


- 


- 


565 


12 


41 


5.1 


. 3 


0.4 


802 


16 


29 


2.3 


6 


0.5 


1,251 


17 


11 


1.7 


1 


0.2 


645 



Source: Compiled by the Planning Division, Department of 
ComjTiunity Developi^.ent from, the 19 7 Census of 
Population and Housing. 



25 



street Conditions 

Another element which one must review in examining the environ- 
mental quality of a community is street conditions. This is 
an element in various neighborhoods that relates to health and 
safety. 

In light of the 197 2 housing survey data, an examination was 
given to several blighted enumeration districts to determine 
whether a relationship existed between deteriorated housing 
and street conditions in 1969. Types of streets in the City 
were : 

(1) Asphalt, with curb and gutter, 

(2) Asphalt only, 

(3) Limerock, and 

(4) Dirt. 

Enumeration districts which show some physical relationship 
between the two variables are listed below. Comparison is 
made with the 84 percent of standard housing and the 0.2 per- 
cent dilapidated housing in the City. (SEE APPENDIX TABLE 22) 



Enumeration 


Dominant 


Standard 


Dilapidated 


District 


Street Type 


Housing 


Housing 


1648 




Dirt 


12% 


1.7% 


1655 




Dirt 


75% 


0.3% 


1656 




Dirt 


66% 


0.8% 


1657 




Limerock 


22% 


0.7% 


1659 




Limerock 


58% 


% 


1660 




Dirt 


35% 


2.1% 



Several enumeration districts, despite the fact of having asphalt 
paved streets with curbs and gutters, show a significant devia- 
tion from the City's percentage of standard and/or its percentage 
of dilapidated housing which is 84 percent and 0.2 percent, re- 
spectively. E.D. 1618 had the highest percentage of dilapidated 
housing of the forty (40) enumeration districts studied. 
(SEE APPENDIX TABLE 22) 



9k 



Enumeration 
District 


Dominant 

Street Type 


Standard 

Housing 


Dilapidated 
Housing 


1618 


Asphalt with 
curb and gutter 


84% 




2.7% 


1635 


Asphalt with 
curb and gutter 


79% 




0.4% 


1644 


Asphalt with 


23% 




0.3% 



curb and gutter 

1645 Asphalt with 74% 0.3% 

curb and gutter 

.The City initiated a sem.i-pave program to elimanate all un- 
paved streets in 1971. The 1971-72 program included portions 
of E.D.'s 1634, 1635, 1644, 1661, 1655 and 1656. 

E. D. 16 44 encompassed what is known as the "5th Avenue Com- 
munity." In 1972, Skip Perez and Stacey Bridges reported in 
a special report in the Gainesville Sun , "Inner City Elues"25 
that this was "Gainesville's Black ghetto - 180 acres in the 
heart of town where almost half of its families are on welfare 
and human density per acre is three times as great as most 
other city residential areas." The 1970 Census reported, as 
was pointed out in the article, that seven out of ten of the 
residents live in rented units, while virtually 90 percent 
of the area's population was Black. 

The authors note that the "best known of four major Black 
communities, the NW 5th Avenue Comjnunity, is the smallest in 
size, the largest in population, and the most heavily concentrated 
with dilapidated housing." They added that greater than 38 per- 
cent of all the streets here are unpaved, in other words, 16,400 
feet of dirt and limerock roads. Few sidewalks also were re- 
ported in the Community by the authors. 

Street Lighting 

Generally, the City's streets provide adequate lighting for the 
various neighborhoods on the basis of available data. 

Various issues and similar findings concerning housing condi- 
tions that are discussed within this chapter were also given 
intensive analysis in developing the "Chicago Model Cities 
Program: Five Year Forecast," as edited by Ira M. Robinson 
in Decision-Making in Urban Planning (An Introduction to New 
Methodologies ) . •3 

Blight Defined 

The Gainesville Housing Code states that blighted areas exist 

which contain dwellings that have been faultily designed or 

built; improperly maintained or repaired; lack sanitary facilities. 



27 



[ 



lighting, ventilation, or heating; or a combination of these 
factors with improper management so that the buildings become 
so deteriorated, dilapidated, neglected, overcrowded, or un- 
sanitary as to be unfit for human habitation or to imperil 
the health, safety or morals of the occupants or the surrounding 
area. 2 Several of these elements have been pointed out in the 
neighborhoods just analyzed. 

Further noted is the impact of blight on the community. Such 
includes structural deterioration; deficient sanitation facili- 
ties; accumulation of trash and rubbish in yards; lack of 
community facilities such as paved streets, water, and sewer 
systems and storm drainage facilities; mixtures of incompatible 
land uses and impractical layout of blocks, lots, or streets. 
Blighted areas generally are related to social indicators such 
as high rates of juvenile deliquency, police and fire calls, 
and welfare assistance. They also demand rather costly amounts 
of public services. Virtually all of these environmental condi- 
tions and the factors cited below were documented as contributors 
to blight by Coleman and Gutheim in a paper prepared for the 1949 
National Conference on Family Life. 

Factors believed to influence the formation of blight are: 

(1) Absentee ov/nership . VThen a property owner is 
living av/ay from his holdings; he often lacks 
information about changing conditions and needs, 
and lacks pride in the dwellings, causing neg- 
lect. 

(2) Housing Shortage . Lack of decent housing at a 
price which can be af forded , often forces people 
to seek shelter in substandard housing and en- 
courage's overcrowding, improper conversion of 
older houses, and lack of pride in the dwellings, 
causing neglect. 

(3) Ineffective Codes . Poor ordinances or ineffective 
enforcement can allow the development of blighting 
influences such as mixing of industrial and residen- 
tial land uses, structural deterioration, unsafe 
buildings, and unhealthy sanitation practices. 

(4) Lack of Services . Failure to provide regular gar- 
bage collection, proper street m.aintenance , and 
adequate water and sewer service can lead to 
neighborhood decline. 

(5) Mixed Land Uses . Growth often places older residen- 
tial areas next to incompatible commercial and indus- 
trial land uses. Spot zoning or over-zoning for indus- 
trial and coiiLmercial uses make this problem, worse as 
nearby homes are allowed to deteriorate. 



28 



Thus, it may readily be concluded that blight not only affects 
the "Quality of Life" for the residents of such areas, but 
also for the community as a whole. 



Detailed Evaluation of Housing Quality 

Enumeration Districts 

Next, in this analysis of housing conditions, the quality of 
housing in each enumeration district was examined while making 
comparisons with the City's average (mean) housing conditions 
as a whole. As noted earlier, a ranking scale of 1 to 5 was 
utilized in accessing the physical codition of dwelling units. 
Each rank in this scale entails the following: 

(1) A totally uninhabitable unit; a dilapidated struc- 
ture or one that does not provide adequate shelter 
and is a serious detriment to the health, safety, 
and well-being of the occupants. 

(2) An inhabitable unit if major repairs are perform.ed or 

where one or more of the following is needed: cor- 
rection of a sag or lean of a structure; reroofing; 
reflooring; complete resurfacing of interior walls 
or ceilings; replacem^ent of load bearing members; 
major additions to dwellings; complete rewiring; 
installation of additional outlets or fixtures; 
installation of one or m.ore required plumbing fix- 
tures; connection to City sanitary sewage system. 

(3) Denotes a deteriorating condition but the structure 
is still habitable as long as minor repairs are 
performed; minor rehabilitation would probably be 
recommended under this classification. Minor repairs 
would include one or more of the follov/ing: repair 
of a minor nature to the electrical system; repair 

or replacem.ent of plumbing fixtures (tub, shower, 
lavatory, flush toilet, water heater); repair of 
a minor nature of structural portions not to include 
bearing members such as leaks in roof; repJacement 
of rotted or damaged boards in the flooring and/or 
exterior v.'alls; repair holes in exterior walls and 
ceilings; repair broken windows, doors, screens; 
and a mtinor repair to porch or steps. 

(4) Denotes a structure that has only minor or slight 
defects which should be rapaired as a part of normal 
and adequate maintenance (such as lack of closet or 
floor space) but is one that meets the absolute 
minim^um code requirements. 

(5) Denotes a structure that has no defects at all; 
a unit that surpasses the minim.um code reauire- 
ments . IJumbers four and five would aid in de- 
lineating conservation districts. 



E.D. 1618 contained the largest percentage of dilapidated 
housing (2.7 percent) when coitipared with the City's average 
(mean) for dilapidated housing of 0.2 percent. The greatest 
deviations from the City's averages were E.D.'s 1657, 1649, 
and 1648. These areas, com.pared with the City's mean, within 
parenthesis, had the greatest percentages of housing needing 
major repair 25.2 percent (3.1 percent), needing minor repair 
15.6 percent (2.0 percent), and of housing with minor or 
slight defects 6 3.6 percent (11.1 percent), respectively. 
The smallest percentage of standard housing was found in E.D. 
164 8 with 11.7 percent v;hen compared to the City's average 
(mean) of 84 percent standard. Appendix Table 22 ranks housing 
condition percentages of enumeration districts and compares 
them with the City's averages. Map 9 shows the average housing 
condition rating for all forty (40) enumeration districts sur- 
veyed. 

Tables IX - XII ranks the enumeration districts by percentages 
of housing (dilapidated, major repair, minor repair, minor or 
slight defects) receiving a rating of 1 to 4 that exceeded the 
City's average (mean) for each rating, respectively. In addi- 
tion. Table XIII ranks enumeration districts by percentages of 
housing (standard) receiving a rating of 5 that fell below 
the City's average (mean) for such category. 



MAP 9 

AVERAGE HOUSINO 
BY ENUMERATION 



CONDITION 
DISTRICTS 



OAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 
l©73 



SUBSTANDARD 




STANDARD 



TABLE IX 

DILAPIDATED HOUSING ABOVE CITY'S AVERAGE (0.2%) PER E.D. 
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 









Dilapidated 


Total 




E.D. 
1618 


%_ 
2.7 


Units 


Units 


(1) 


2 


74 


(2) 


1660 


2.1 


7 


326 


(3) 


1648 


1.7 


6 


360 


(4) 


1656 


0.8 


6 


733 


(5) 


1657 


0.7 


1 


139 


(6) 


1658 


0.7 


6 


807 


(7) 


1623 


0.4 


2 


548 


(8) 


1635 


0.4 


2 


562 


(9) 


1644 


0.4 


4 


939 


(10) 


1645 


0.3 


1 


369 


(11) 


1655 


0.3 


4 


1,364 


ALL E.D. 's 




0.01 


41 


6,221 


Source: Cc 


•mpiled b 


y the Plannin 


q Division, Department 


of 



Community Development from, the inspection records 

of the Housing Division, City of Gainesville. Florida. 

Of the forty enumeration districts studied, eleven have per- 
centages of dilapidation that exceed the City's mean of 0.2 
percent. As is apparent in Table IX above, E.D. 1618 has the 
higest percentage of dilapidation, 2.7 percent. Even though 
E.D. 1623 housing condition rating of 4.9 was not one of the 
sixteen previously mentioned enumeration districts with a rating 
below that of the City, 4.8, it had the seventh highest per- 
centage of dilapidated units of all enumeration districts in 
the City. 



31 



\] 



. TABLE X 

MAJOR REPAIR HOUSING ABOVE CITY'S AVERAGE (3.1%) PER E.D. 
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 





E.D. 

1657 


% 
25.2 


Major Repair 
Units 


Total 
Units 


(1) 


35 


139 


(2) 


1644 


16.6 


156 


939 


(3) 


1648 


15.6 


56 


360 


. (4) 


1656 


12.3 


90 


733 


(5) 


1660 


10.4 


34 


326 


(6) 


1618 


8.1 


6 


74 


(7) 


1640 


6.5 


3 


46 


(8) 


1655 


6.2 


85 


1,364 


(9) 


1654 


6.1 


21 


347 


(10) 


1659 


5.6 


18 


321 


(11) 


1661 


4.8 


15 


313 


(12) 


16 49 


4.0 


11 


275 


(13) 


1658 


3.6 


29 


807 


ALL E . D . ' S 


0.09 


559 


6,044 



Source: Compiled by the Planning Division, Department of 
Community Development from the inspection records 
of the Housing Division, City of Gainesville, 
Florida. 



Table X shows that there are thirteen enumeration districts 
whose percentages of m^ajor repair housing exceeded the City's 
mean of 3.1 percent. 



32 



u 
il: 



. TABLE XI 

MINOR REPAIR HOUSING ABOVE CITY's AVERAGE (2.0%) PER E.D. 
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 









Minor Repair 


Total 




E.D. 
1649 


% 

15.6 


Units 


Units 


(1) 


43 


275 


(2) 


1654 


8.9 


31 


347 


(3) 


1648 


7.5 


27 


360 


(4) 


1660 


7.4 


24 


326 


(5) 


1657 


7.2 


10 


139 


(6) 


1635 


6.0 


34 


562 


(7) 


1625 


4.1 


21 


507 


(8) 


1633 


4.1 


13 


319 


(9) 


1656 


4.0 


29 


733 


(10) 


1653 


3.8 


1 


26 


(11) 


1661 


3.2 


10 


313 


(12) 


1622 


3.0 


22 


729 


(13) 


1655 


2.8 


38 


1,3F4 


(14) 


1659 


2.8 


9 


321 


(15) 


1618 


2.7 


2 


74 


(16) 


1658 


2.7 


22 


807 


(17) 


1623 


2.2 


12 


54 8 


(18) 


1640 


2.2 


1 


46 


(19) 


1645 


2.2 


8 


369 


ALL E . D . • s 


0.05 


345 


8,165 



Source: Coinpiled by the Planning Division, Department of 
Corrjnunity Development from the inspection records 
of the Housing Division, City of Gainesville, Florida, 

The table above shov/s that there were nineteen enumeration 
districts whose percentages of minor repair housing exceeded 
the City's average of 2 percent. 



■ TABLE XII 

STANDARD HOUSING WITH MINOR DEFECTS ABOVE CITY'S AVERAGE 

(11.1%) PER E.D. 
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA . 





E.D. 
1648 


% 
63.6 


Minor Defected 
Units 


Total 
Units 


(1) 




229 


360 


(2) 


1644 


58.6 




550 


939 


(3) 


16 4 9 


47.3 




130 


275 


(4) 


1657 


45.3 




63 


139 


(5) 


1660 


44.8 




146 


326 


(6) 


1653 


34.6 




9 


26 


(7) 


1659 


33.6 




108 


321 


(8) 


1654 


25.4 




88 


347 


(9) 


1645 


20.9 




77 


369 


(10) 


1656 


17.3 




127 


733 


(11) 


1655 


15.6 




38 


1,364 


(12) 


1635 


14.6 




82 


562 


(13) 


1661 


12.5 




39 


313 


(14) 


1634 


11.2 




20 


179 


ALL E.D. 


•s 


0.27 


1 


,706 


6,253 



Source: Compiled by the Planning Division, Department of 
Community Developm.ent from the inspection records 
of the Housing Division, City of Gainesville Florida 



As pointed out by Table XII, fourteen enumeration districts 
had percentages of housing with minor or slight defects 
(conservation housing) that exceeded the City's average of 
11 percent. 



K 



TABLE XIII 

STANDARD HOUSING BELOW CITY'S AVERAGE (84%) PER E.D. 
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 



Total 

E.D. %_ Units Units 

12 42 360 

22 30 139 

23 213 939 
33 91 275 
35 115 326 
60 207 347 



(1) 


1648 


(2) 


1657 


(3) 


1644 


(4) 


1649 


(5) 


1660 


(6) 


1654 


(7) 


1659 


(8) 


1653 


(9) 


1656 


(10) 


1645 


(11) 


1655 


(12) 


1635 


(13) 


1661 


(14) 


1640 


ALL E . D . ' s 





60 186 321 

62 16 26 

66 481 733 

74 274 369 

75 1,024 1,364 

79 443 562 

80 249 313 
83 38 46 

56 3,409 6,120 



Source: Compiled by the Planning Division, Department of 
Comir.unity Development from the inspection records 
of the Housing Division, City of Gainesville, Florida 



Table XIII shows the fourteen enumeration districts that con- 
tain less tha 84 percent of standard dwelling units. E.D. 1641 
has the lowest percentage of standard housing in the City. 



Standard 


Units 


42 


30 


213 


91 


115 


207 


186 


16 


481 


274 


1,024 


443 


249 


38 



■^c; 



From these charts, it is possible to statistically group the 
various percentages of housing by type and categorize them in 
regards to deviation from the City's average (mean). For 
example, the following charts show the range of average scores, 
while the second column will delineate the degree of desirability. 

Chart 1 



Range 


of Dilapidation (%) 


Category 


2.7 - 


2.0 


most undesirable 


1.9 - 


1.4 


more undesirable 


1.3 - 


0.9 


undesirable 


0.8 - 


0.5 


least desirable 


0.4 - 


0.2 


less desirable 



Chart 2 



Range 


of Major Repair (%) 


Category 


25.2 - 


- 12.4 


most undesirable 


12.3 - 


- 6.6 


more undesirable 


6.5 - 


- 4.9 


undesirable 


4.8 - 


- 3.7 


least desirable 


3.6 - 


- 3.0 


less desirable 



Chart 3 



Range of r4inor Repair (%) 


Category 


15.6 - 7.6 


most undesirable 


7.5 - 4.2 


more undesirable 


4.1 - 3.7 


undesirable 


3.6 - 2.9 


least desirable 


2.8 - 2.2 


less desirable 



Chart 4 



Range of Minor Defects (%) 


Categorv 


63.6 - 45.4 


most undesirable 


45.3 - 25.5 


more undesirable 


25.4 - 17.4 


undesirable 


17.3 - 12.6 


least desirable 


12.5 - 11.0 


less desirable 



Chart 5 



Range of Standard (%) 


Category 


11.7 - 22.7 


most undesirable 


22.8 - 35.4 


more undesirable 


35.5 - 59.9 


undesirable 


60.0 - 73.9 


least desirable 


74.0 - 83.7 


less desirable 



•ir 



^ 



O 
r+ 

P 



Appendix Table 22 also allow 
(40) enumeration districts by 
ranking is displayed in Tabl 
found: E.D. 1618 ranks firs 
housing (2.7 percent); E.D. 
of housing needing major rep 
first in total percentage of 
(63.6 percent); and E.D. 164 
percentage of housing that i 



s the ranking of each of the forty 
various housing conditions. Such 
e XIV wherein the follov/ing is 
t in total percentage of dilapidated 
1657 ranks first in total percentage 
air (25.2 percent); E.D. 1649 ranks 

housing with minor cr slight defects 
8 ranks lowest, fortieth, in total 
s standard (12 percent) . 



At this point, it is possible to isolate and rank for closer 
examination those enumeration districts whose average housing 
conditions v/ith regards to dilapidation, major repair, minor 
repair, and minor or slight defect, are greater than the City 
averages. In addition, one can look at the ranking of enumera- 
tion districts by the lowest percentages of standard housing. 
(SEE TABLE XV) These would be the enumeration districts which 
would dem.and the most immediate attention. 



Blocks 

Table XV facilatates the isolation of nine enumeration districts 
by blocks, on the basis of numerical dilapidation and deteriora- 
tion of housing units. (SEE MAPS 10-13) These enum.eration dis- 
tricts include the following: 



1618 
1635 

1644 



1645 
1648 

1655 



1656 

1657 
1660 



The housing conditions by block in these enumeration districts 
are rated en the scale of 1 to 5. The ratings and descrip- 
tions utilized are as follows: 



1.00 - 1.59 

1.60 - 2.59 

2.60 - 3.59 

3.60 - 4.59 

4.60 - 5.00 



primarily clearance; 

scattered clearance and m^ajor rshabilitatirn; 

primarily major rehabilitation; 

major rehabilitation and minor rehabilitation; and 

conservation. ■ 



37 



TABLE XIV 

RANK OF ENUMERATION DISTRICTS BY VARIOUS HOUSING CONDITIONS, 1973 
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 



Major Minor Minor 
Dilapidated Repair Reoair Defects Standard 
E.D. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 



(1) 


1618 


1 


6 


15 


24 


27 


(2) 


1619 














1 


(3) 


1620 








24 


20 


19 


(4) 


1621 





16 





30 


14 


(5) 


1622 


12 


18 


12 


17 


24 


(6) 


1623 


7 


20 


17 


22 


21 


(7) 


1624 





23 


20 


21 


20 


(8) 


1625 





14 


7 


18 


25 


(9) 


1626 





24 


22 


19 


22 


(10) 


1627 








29 


35 


8 


(11) 


1628 














2 


(12) 


1629 





22 


30 


33 


11 


(13) 


1630 














3 


(14) 


1631 











31 


10 


(15) 


1632 





19 


25 


28 


19 


(16) 


1633 





25 


8 


29 


18 


(17) 


1634 








23 


14 


23 


(18) 


1635 


8 


26 


6 


12 


30 


(19) 


1640 





7 


18 


15 


28 


(20) 


1641 





21 


26 


26 


16 


(21) 


1642 














5 


(22) 


1643 











34 


7 


(23) 


1644 


9 


2 


21 


2 


39 


(24) 


1645 


10 


15 


19 


9 


32 


(25) 


1646 








27 


25 


13 


(26) 


1647 











27 


12 


(27) 


1648 


3 


3 


3 


1 


41 


(28) 


1649 





12 


1 


3 


38 


(29) 


1650 














6 


(30) 


1651 











32 


9 


(31) 


1652 





17 


28 


23 


17 


(32) 


1653 








10 


6 


34 


(33) 


1654 





9 


2 


8 


35 


(34) 


1655 


11 


8 


13 


11 


31 


(35) 


1656 


4 


4 


9 


10 


33 


(36) 


1657 


5 


1 


5 


4 


40 


(37) 


1658 


6 


13 


16 


16 


26 


(38) 


1659 





10 


14 


7 


36 


(39) 


1660 


2 


5 


4 


5 


37 


(40) 


1661 





11 


11 


13 


29 



Source: Compiled by the Planning Division, Department of 
Community Development from the inspection records 
of the Housing Division, City of Gainesville, Florida, 



TABLE XV 

RANK OF TEN ENUMERATION DISTRICTS WITH HOUSING CONDITIONS 
GREATER THAN (1-4) AND LESS THAN (5) CITY AVERAGE (MEAN) 
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 







Major 




Minor 




Minor 








Dilapidated 


Repair 




Repair 




Defect 




Stand 


ard 


E.D. 


(1) 


E.D. 


(2) 


E.D. 


(3) 


E.D. 


(4) 


E.D. 


(5) 


1618 


1 


1657 


1 


1649 


1 


1648 


1 


1648 


1 


1660 


2 


1644 


2 


1654 


2 


1644 


2 


1657 


2 


1648 


3 


1648 


3 


1648 


3 


1649 


3 


1644 


3 


1656 


4 


1656 


4 


1660 


4 


1657 


4 


1649 


4 


1657 


5 


1660 


5 


1657 


5 


1660 


5 


1660 


5 


1658 


6 


1618 


6 


1635 


6 


1653 


6 


1659 


6 


1623 


7 


1640 


7 


1625 


7 


1659 


7 


1654 


7 


1635 


8 


1655 


8 


1633 


8 


1654 


8 


1653 


8 


1644 


9 


1654 


9 


1656 


9 


1645 


9 


1656 


9 


1655 


10 


1659 


10 


1653 


10 


1656 


10 


1645 


10 



Source: Compiled by the Planning Division, Department of 
Community Development from the inspection records 
of the Housing Division, City of Gainesville, Florida, 



r 



r: 



RATING OF HOUSING 
CONDITIONS BY BLOCKS 

MAP lO 




8TH 



^^it^T 



IL 



:2{ 
















SUBSTANDARD 

I.OO - 1.59 



I.60 -2.59 






3. SO - 4-. 59 



9m 



4-.60 - 5.00 



THE PFIEPAR.ATION OF THIS 
MAP WAS FINANCED I.\ PA.-.T 
THROUGH A COMrRr:!:L\'S:VE 
PLANNING GF-ANT FBGM Jl.S: 
DErARTMENT OF MCCSIXG 
AND URDAN DEVELOP ••.E.\T. 



FW^^F^rv*- 






STANDARD 



2.60 -3.59 



r 
r 
r 
r 



RATING OF HOUSING 
CONDITIONS BV BLOCKS 

MAP II 



I6TH 



PL 



AVE. 



Dp 

AVE.I 



a: 

t- 




' 11 


X 


ii 


X 



IWE-I 



nay 





^i>&i 






**- ' - -~ - '-. * ! /^ :^ cr =^- L. -1 --' --^ '= T+4 -"I : tm?- 






v:vXi 135-7 i^i^ 1 1 "' . ---=1 i - ?'" ^ i i l- ^r^ 7 ^:^ ••:•:•••••' 



y'/'' /■21 --. T J -- ■ -C-. f-r- v--j > -, .- - ■ ' ^ ^ J r " - - -'r — — rr:--.--:- ;-^n_- -r-J> -^ * ^ n ► . t .. c 1.1 — — ■» All, -; -~ V-, 



}G 



•^ 



\i 



JCIZ1C 



1 r 



'^^iSj 



''■£■ I 



-| r 



==SP^ 



3 



-E.AST LNIV. AVE. 



>- 

<0 




V 




(5 







\ 


X 


1& 




z 


\ 


t- 






<M 




L I" 


1 III 



1 



5' 5? 

■I lUI I 



SUBSTANDARD 



t-iivSy^ ■ 'iCU 



*■>!■■■ 



1.00 - 1.59 



l.aO - 2.59 



2. SO -3.59 



m 



3. so - -4.59 



^.eo - 5-00 



STANDARD 

41 



THE PREPARATION' OF THIS 
MAP WAS FINAN'CED I.\ P.\RT 
THROUGH A CO.'rPruiHE.VSIVE 
PLANMNG CPj\.\'T FnOVr THE 
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSI.\G 
AND URBAN DEVELOP .'ILMT. 



RATING OF HOUSING 
CONDITIONS BY BLOCKS 

MAP 12 



^L 



Jl_2. AVEj llSTi n 



E^QDLi 



mil 




SUBSTANDARD 






wm 



I.OO - 1.59 



I.60 - 2.59 



n Ci.r>t St t= e-^ 



m 



3.60 - <4.59 



-4.60 - 5.00 



STANDARD 



TH£ PREPAR-^.TIC-: OF THIS 
MAP WAS I-ir./v>;CZD IN PART 
THROUGH A CO.\:r.-^iHL\SIVE 
PLANNING GRANT .-ROM THE 
DEPARTMENT OF ; OL'SING 
AND URBAN D£Vt_OP MEMT. 



RATING OF HOUSING 
CONDITIONS BY BLOCKS 

MAP 13 




SUBSTANDARD 



El 



(S 



T» > ^ » y% 



LOO - 1.59 
I.60 -2.59 



3.60 -4-.59 



4-.60 -5.00 



THE PREPARATION OF THIS 
MAP WAS FIN'AN'CED IX PART 
THROUGH A COMnii^HLNSlVE 
PLANNING GRANT FROM THE 
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING 
AND URBAN DEVELOP ^ '.LNT. 



STANDARD 

A I 



CHAPTER 5 

COMPARISON OF HOUSING CODE ENFORCEMENT RESULTS 



Comparison of past studies conducted by the City of Gainesville 
tend to reflect how it has maintained an active program in the 
pursuit of the goal of decent housing and a suitable living 
environment for all of its residents. As previously mentioned, 
this has been trem.endously aided by the City's adoption and 
strong enforcement of a Minim^um Standard Housing Code, in addi- 
tion to assisting in the provision of federally subsidized 
public and private-owner and rental housing. 

The City, in 1966, adopted a Minimum Standard Housing Code 
Enforcement Program^^ which would permit the first cycle of 
housing inspections to be completed by late December, 1971. 
Several problems were met in an attempt to secure compliance 
from low incom.e property owners; therefore, as a measure to 
facilitate compliance, the City extended the the time for 
comipletion of the first cycle of housing inspections to the 
end of 1972. 

In a recent report, seven years after the beginning of the 
first cycle of housing inspections, the Housing Division re- 
ported its progress. Over this period of time a total of 
3,934 of an estimiated 16,155 dwelling units had been cited 
for housing code violations. The enforcemtent program had 
resulted in 2,862 or 73 percent of the dwelling units in 
violation to be brought in comtpliance with the Minimum. Stand- 
ard Housing Code and required the demiOlition of 508 dilapidated 
dwelling units, that is 13 percent of the substandard dwellings 
Also at the end of this period, the Housing Division reported 
564 or 14 percent of the City's original substandard dwellings 
still in violation of the code. 

Occupancy status of these latter units was given as follows: 
234 units v/ere vacant; 60 units were occupied by owners, 
classified by the Housing Division to be hardship cases; 199 
units were occupied by owners who have not completed the 
required rehabilitation but were completing the wor^- as rapidly 
as time and their incomes would permdt; the remaining 71 units 
were tenant occupied. The Housing Division noted that these 
tenant occupied units in violation of the housing code which 
were not being rehabilitated , were being vacated for non-compli- 
ance. The shortage of lov/ income rental housing m^akes vacating 
units a lengthy process. 

In 1965, the Gainesville Neiahhorhood Analvsis studv revealed 
that the City consisted of 15,655 dwelling units of which 84.1 
percent v/ere considered standard or conservation dwe] lings, and 
15.9 percent were substandard. (SEE TABLE XVI) This latter 
category consisted of 15.2 percent in need of rehabilitation 
(mtajor and minor repair) and 0.7 percent dilapidated. The per- 
centage of substandard housing units reported in 1966 (24 per- 
cent) was significantly higher than it was in 1965. The reason 



4 



for this discrepancy may ,be that the Housing Division based 
its 1965 housing condition ratings (scale) on the 1962 County's 
Tax Accessor Records, v;hich were numerically higher than they 
were in 1966, and were based primarily on age. 

Four years after the I^'eighborhood Analysis study was conducted, 
another housing survey was conducted by the Department of 
Community Development. It concentrated only on areas with 
significant numbers of substandard housing. The survey found 
that there were 1,650 or 8.5 percent substandard dwelling units 
within these areas, a decrease of 703 dwellings from 1965 if 
one assumes few or none of the substandard units lay outside 
of the surveyed areas . 

The 19 69 housing survey28 also revealed that approximately 
1,500 of these substandard dwellings were in need of rehabili- 
tation to bring them up to the standards of the Minimum Housing 
Code. Following this activity, another housing survey was 
taken in 1972 which found 1,040 or 5.3 percent of the substand- 
ard dwellings in need of rehabilitation (major or minor repair) , 
a reduction of 460 units. Also in 1969, 150 units were con- 
sidered to be dilapidated beyond repair versus only 42 at the 
end of the 1972 survey. (SEE TABLE XVI) 

As of January, 1973, most of these substandard units had been 
either brought into com.pliance with the Minimum Housing Code, 
vacated, or demolished. 

Analysis of the first cycle (1966-1972) of the housing code 
enforcement inspections reveals that an average of 4 09 dwelling 
units were brought into com.pliance per year, or an average of 
34 units per month. Over the same period, an average of 73 
units were demolished per year or 6 units per month as compared 
to approximately 10 per month in 1973. Federally subsidized 
housing, both private-owner and rental, has aided in filling 
the critical shortage for low and moderate income priced housing. 

In reference to Table XVI, there was an increase of 4,837 dwelling 
units in the City of Gainesville between 1965 and 1972. Most of 
of these units, 3,858, vrere constructed between 1965 and 1969. 
Many private home owners and renter-occupants were aided by the 
federal housing subsidy programs to be discussed later in this 
study. 

Several of the dwellings cleared over the past years may have 
been preserved prior to becoming dilapidated beyond repair had 
poverty level households been financially able, and had absentee 
owners shown more pride in their dwellings. 

Since 1970, Gainesville Neighborhood Development, Incorporated 
(GNDI), a volunteer group, has been instrumental in providing 
loans to low incomie households for homie improvem.ents . Loans 
fall within the range of $35 - $2,000. Title I of the Federal 
Housing Act aided some banks in providing home improvement loans 
to lov; income families. 



CM 

I 

ID 





^^ 




in 




vo 


'd 


CTi 


c 


I—) 


c 


^— ' 


x: 




u 


tn 





•H 


^ 


Cfi 


x: 


> 


CTrHl 


-H 


fd 


C' 


c 


S 


< 



0\3 



O 

c 



CO 





in 


m 


iH W 


in 


c 


ra +J 


v£> 


c 


JJ -H 


^ 


^ 


c 


in 


m 


E-i D 


iH 


.H 



in 



in 



o 



in 
o 



in 



in 



M 

> 

X 

w 

CQ 
< 
Eh 



CO 

o 

H 
C 

o < 

U D 
H 

s o 

H J 

D 
O 

Cn 
O 

&H 



w 

> 



Eh 
D 



< 



Q 

>H 

Eh 
H 

< 

D 

a 
o 

2 
O 
W 
H 
Pi 
< 

s 

u 





^-^ 




c. 




VD 




CT. 




iH 




— 


Cn 




C 


> 


H 


0) 


W 


> 


P 


u 





D 


a; 


W 





,_^ 




CM 




r-« 




C\ 




rH 







Cn 




c 


> 


-H 


c 


0} 


> 


P 


u 





p 


1— » 


C/3 



<A0 



.P| 



.H 


OT 


fd 


+J 


-P 


•H 





C 


H 


D 



o 



o 

o 







•K 






cn 


r-l 


W 


iH 


m 


■P 


in 


■P 


-H 


«. 


C 


c 


CTi 


Eh 


D 


<-{ 



o 
o 






o 



t7» 
C 
•H 

cn 

4-> 

u 






cr. 



o 

cr. 



(L) !-i 

•rH ra 

£ ro 

O -P 

u 0:1 



o 



CO 






G 

fd 



CN 



CO 
U -P 

o u 

Q) 

S^ M-i 
O O 
C Q 
■H 

S -P 

-P -H 
•H rH 

2 02 



in 
00 



00 
o 




o o 
in in 



o 
o 
in 



in 



C 
(d 
-P 
W 

P 
CO 



o 



r- CN (N 

KO CO -^ 

CM O 



m 



U3 



Q) 
-P 

fd 

-H 

a. 
fd 

i-i 
•H 
Q 



^1 

O 



•H -H 

^ fd 

O Q 



o 



o 



S-l 

o 

•H 

s 

en 
•H -H 

13 fd 
o o 



cr> 



C <N 



en rH (D 

•H — £ 



[' 



I- 



As revealed by the earlier detailed analysis of the geographical 
problem areas (census tracts), not only is this where the most 
blighted, housing is located, but also is vhere many poverty status 
families and public assistance recipient households reside. 
Noted also was the fact that much of such housing was built around 
1890. 

An examination of all available data indicates that the incomes 
of these families and households has not significantly increased 
to date. The Housing Division, Department of Community Develop- 
ment subm.its that 9 percent of the owners whose housing violate 
the Housing Code are hardship cases. In addition, 90 percent 
of the vacant units have not been cleared. There exists in- 
sufficient relocation housing v^ithin the financial capability 
of these low income households. 

It is evident that the Minimum Housing Code Enforcement Program 
has aided the increase of the City's percentage of standard 
housing units even though several home-owners and renters still 
live in substandard housing. Enforcemcent of the Housing Code, 
as is now apparent, provided for the elimination of the privies, 
substituting for it indoor toilets. In addition, an ordinance 
was passed requiring housing units that had not been connected 
to the City's sanitary sewer system, to do so. Low income 
families were permitted to spread the cost of such hook-ups 
over a long period of time. 

In conclusion, one must note that such studies and surveys 
from past to present gives a general view of the City's 
progress in decreasing the total number of substandard housing 
units within the City, but not its ability to correspondingly 
increase the number of dv/elling units for low and moderate 
imcome households by mustering public and private support. 

Strong enforcement of the Housing Code in itself with the 
provision of many federally funded rental programs is not 
enough. Such activity m.ust be coupled with more concrete 
financial support and cooperation from both public and pri- 
vate sectors in meeting the unmeet houp. ing needs of low and 
moderate incomie families. This point v.-ill be given further 
attention in the fcllcv/ing chapter on Housing Availabiltiy . 



r 



CHAPTER 6 

HOUSIIJG AVAILABILITY 

Subsidized Housing: Low and iModerate Income ' 

Housing Board's Conclusions 

As of January, 19 72, all housing programs funded through the 
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development were frozen. 
In regards to federally assisted, private ownership housing, 
as m^entioned previously, a high degree of concentration exists 
in Census Tracts 6 and 7, and the Federal Housing Administration 
(FHA) local office has indicated that no further federally 
assisted low and moderate income housing will be allov^ed in 
these areas of Gainesville. The Housing Board23 concluded 
that the termination of funds may be attributed to tight budget 
limitations and prim.arily to "the failure of previous programs 
to solve the low income housing problem," adding that a result 
of such programs have been "instant ghettos," financial fiascos 
and unhappy citizens, both within and without the federally 
subsidized projects. 

A report, Housing in Florida , 32 prepared by the Office of the 
Governor and others, reveals that there was a total of 394 
Section 235 Home Mortgages and 2,121 rental units approved by 
FHA for and subsequently constructed in Alachua County from 
1969 to 1972. As was previously noted, the City of Gaiensville 
had a construction boom in federally subsidized housing between 
1965 and 1970. The various federal subsidy programs aiding in 
the provision of hom.e ov:nership include the following: 

(1) Section 235, Homeownership Program; 

(2) Section 221 (h) and 235 (j), Rehabilitation Programs; 
and 

(3) Farmers Home Administration Homeovmership Programs. 

For a more detailed description of each, see Housing in Florida , 
Vol. 5, as prepared by the Office of the Governor, the Governor's 
Task Force on Housing and Community Development, and the State 
of Florida Department of Conriunity Affairs. 

Of the sixty-seven (67) counties in the State of Florida, Alachua 
County ranks better than 65 of these in terms of the lov/est ratio 
of the number of poverty level families per subsidized housing 
unit (1.5: 1). The State's ratio is 2.8: 1. 

It is estimated that a single family housing unit can not be 
built in the City for less than $17,000 without federal subsidy. 
Thus there has been a decrease in the num^ber of housing units 
priced at $20,000 or less since 1971, without any noticable 
increase in construction to date. 



Subsidized Projects Completed and Vacancy Statuses 

City 

Table XVII shows the number of lovv and moderate income multiple 
family type housing units constructed in the City under federal 
housing programs between 1968 and 1973. Notably, 83 percent of 
the City's public housing, and 64 percent of its rent supplem.ent 
or interest subsidy dwellings v;ere constructed between 1968 and 
1970. 

There appears to exist a shortage of rental housing in the City 
of Gainesville in the lower price ranges. Table XVIII lists the 
vacancy ratios and the number of applicants on waiting lists for 
various public, rent supplemental, and interest subsidized housing 
facilities in the City. As of June of this year, the Gainesville 
Housing Authority, which has worked diligently in the provision 
of public housing, reported a waiting list of 1,539 applicants. 
Some duplication may exist among the 358 applicants on the 
wainting list for other subsidized housing. The Housing Authority 
had an application for 300 additional units pending at the time 
of the HUD freeze. There are 585 public housing units owned by 
the Gainesville Housing Authority and 788 subsidized (rent sup- 
plement and interest subsidy) units in the City. Subsidy pro- 
gram's which facilitate the provision of low income rental housing 
include : 

(1) Public Housing; 

(2) Section 202, Rental and Cooperative Housing for the 
Elderly and Permanently Handicapped; 

(3) 221 (d) (3) Below Market Interest Rate (BMIR) and 
Rent Supplement Programs; 

(4) Section 236, Rental Housing Program; and 

(5) Farmers Home Administration Rural Rental Programs. 

It might be significant to note here, that unlike some other large 
colleges in small cities, the University of Florida houses only 
38 percent of approximately 23,0 00 students. The point is that 
62 percent of the University's student population in 1970 souaht 
housing in the private sector, in some instances competing v/ith 
other low incomie persons for the lim.ited housing available to 
this sector. 

The Gainesville Housing Survey (1972) reveals that a significant 
number of students live within the neighborhoods designated 5-a 
and 5-b or E.D. 16 45, (SEE MJ^.P 4) located in Census Tract 2, 
which are adjacent to the geographical areas recommended more 
concentrated attention in the Land Use Plan (1970). These neigh- 
borhoods are in close proxim.ity to the University of Florira. 
Should there be an increase in housing demands from^ students 
for available low cost housing in these neighborhoods, there 
might occur a reduction in the r.r.ount and quality of lov; cost 
housing for poorer families or households. 





















m 


Ul 








to 
























iji 


en 








Cn 








• 


• 


• 


• 




• 


• 


• 


in c 


tn c 


>1 


TJ 




tn C 


tn 






01 


(0 


tn 


to 




(0 


CO 


tn 


(1) -H 


fU -H 





Q) 




QJ -H 


01 






4J 


■P 


-p 


JJ 


• 


+> 


4J 


-P 


X! r-l 


X i-i 


c 


£ 




X r-( 


X 






a. 


Q. 


a 


a 


tn 


o, 


a 


O, 


(U i-t 


QJ .-, 


QJ >, 


O 




QJ >— 1 


QJ 


■ 




(0 


ns 


(0 


<o 




(0 


(C 


<a 




rH 0) 


•H i-H 
U V4 


P. 




.-H O 


f-H 


tn 


01 


>, 


>i 


>i 


>i 


itj 


>l 


>. 


>i 


3-0 


D TD 


••H QJ 


QJ 




3 -O 


3 


a 


0) 


■p 


4J 


-M 


-p 




■p 


4J 


-p 


'O 


T3 


U-l Xi 


■o 




TJ 


TI 


(0 


a 


•H 


•H 


•iH 


•H 


>i 


■H 


•H 


•H 


TS 


-a 


iw M 






'O 






> 


W 


M 


tn 


tn 


■p 


tn 


tn 


tn 


>, <D 


>, OJ 


QJ QJ 


>i 




>i QJ 


>1 


>i 


E-i 


c 


C 


C 


c 


-H 


c 


c 


c 


-p x: 


p x: 




P 




-p x: 


•p 


-p 




Q) 


Q) 


0) 


OJ 


tn 


q; 


0) 


QJ 


•H U 


■H o 


QJ U 


•H 


tn 


■H U 


■H 


•H 


Cr 


TJ 


TD 


'O 


•v 


c 


-a 


TD 


'O 


tn (0 


tn (0 


■ tn o 


tn 


&■ 


tn tc 


tn 


tn 


c 










0) 








C -P 


G -P 


•H <4-l 


c 


c 


C -P 


c 


c 


-rH 


£ 


g 


e 


E 


T3 


6 


g 


B 


Q) Q) 


QJ QJ 


M 


01 


-H 


Q,' QJ 


Q) 





t-{ 


3 


3 


D 


D 




3 


^ 


3 


TJ -a 


Ti TD 


tn 


■B 


1— 1 


t; t! 


T! 


-a 


t-i 


•H 


•H 


■H 


•rH 


£ 


•H 


•H 


•H 






£ -P 




nH 








<D 


•o 


-o 


TJ 


TJ 


CTi 


-c 


■o 


-O 


S -0 


3 n 


CJi-H 


5 


q; 


S T! 


3 


3 


S 


0) 


0) 


CD 


OJ 


•H 


QJ 


Q) 


<D 


o c 


c 


•H q 





3 


o c 








c 


s 


S 


s 


2 


K 


s 


2 


2 


1-3 (C 


►J (0 


K 3 


I-) Ti 


1-; (D 


^A 


i-:i 



H-l 


>J 





u 




c 


tn 


m 


3 


& 


-P 


3 


(0 


t) 


■P 


CJ 


w ol 



13 


-u 


-a 


Xi 


T! 


X! 


T! 


TI 


Xi 


TD 


-c 


TJ 


73 


■c 


-c 


QJ 


QJ 


QJ 


QJ 


QJ 


QJ 


QJ 


QJ 


QJ 


QJ 


QJ 


QJ 


QJ 


QJ 


QJ 


•1-1 


•H 


•H 


■H 


•H 


■H 


•H 


•H 


•H 


■H 


■H 


■H 


•H 


-H 


•H 


O4 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a, 


a 


a 


a 


c. 


a 


O, 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 








u 


u 











U 








u 





U 





U 


U 


u 


u 


u 


u 


u 





u 


u 


u 


Ul 








u 














c 




















o- 















O in 



o c 

2 D 



(N 



o 
o 



o 
o 



o 
o 



o 
o 



o 
o 



o 



o 



00 
CM 





Q 




H 




8h 




H 




1^ 




Oa 




s < 




a 




U M 




K 









S hJ 




H fe 




CO 




- 


M 


w 


H 


K i-q 


> 


iJ 


X 


W M 




s > 


w 


CO 


hJ 


u w 


01 


s z 


< 


H M 


E-1 


< 




W CJ 




Eh 




^fe 




w 




Q >H 




Eh 




S H 









Q 




2 




< 




IS 









kI 





























o> 


tP 




01 


cr 


CTi 


Di 


Cr> 






^•^ 


««-« 






^-^ 




,«^ 




.^-^ 




^^ 


c 


C 




c 


c 


c 


C 


C 






>. 


>i 






>i 




>l 




>i 




>i 


•H 


-H 




•H 


•r( 


-rl 


-H 


•H 






T! 


T! 






13 




13 




13 




13 


tn 


in 




in 


tn 


in 


tn 


in 


>-i 


4J 


^^-H 


-^ -H 


^-^ 




•1-1 




•H 




■H 




-rH 


3 


3 




3. 


3 


3 


3 


3 


CJ 


C 


ro tn 


n tn 


CO 




tn 




tn 




0) 




tn 










0' 














x: 


QJ 


^X5 


^ X! 


■ — ' 




XJ 




X5 




Xi 




X! 


K 


X 




as 


K 


ns 


K 


a: 


c 


e 


3 


3 






3 




3 




3 




3 


















a 


QJ 


^ tn 


'— tn 


>~« 




in 




in 




to 




tn 


QJ 


QJ 




QJ 


QJ 


QJ 


QJ 


QJ 




iH 


13 


13 


s 


















rH 


•-{ 




r-{ 


•-i 


rH 


rH 


r-\ 


TJ 


o. 


^ -P 


^ +j 






•P 




-P 




X) 




x> 


'-^ >, 


•-{ 


>, 


•-^ >1 


--\ >i 


rH >, 


'-i >, 


■-^ >1 


QJ 


a. 


in 


tn 






tn 




tn 




in 




in 


-rl X» 


•H 


X> 


-H X) 


•H XJ 


•H X) 


•H P 


■H Xl 


a 


3 


rH QJ 


<-\ Q) 


rH 


<x> 


QJ 


VD 


Qj 


V£) 


QJ 


U3 


0) 


> -rl 


> 


•H 


> -H 


> -H 


> -H 


> -r, 


> -H 





t/2 


(N S-l 


fN J-l 


(N 


n 


u 


n 


U 


n 


iH 


m 


u 


to k 


tn 


Vh 


tn u 


in ^ 


tn U 


tn iH 


tn Sh 


i-H 




(N CJ 


CN QJ 


(N 


<N 


QJ 


(N 


QJ 


tN 


0) 


IN 


QJ 


QJ 








QJ 


QJ 


CJ 


QJ C 


QJ 


0) 


4J 


-P 


-P 






■P 




x) 




XI 




XI 


c x: 


C 


x: 


c x: 


C x: 


c x: 


c x: 


c x: 


> 


c 


iS c 




< 


< 


c 


< 


C 


g 


c 


< 


C 


-H X) 


■H 


x> 


-H XJ 


-H X) 


•H 4J 


•rt X 


•H XI 


QJ 


QJ 


a M 


K 


K 


M 




M 


M 


■£. 


M 


fl 3 


(T! 


3 


fO 3 


to 3 


(t3 3 


(D 3 


tC 3 


C 


CC 


fo ^ 


tn ^ 


t, 


ti 


"-' 


fa 


^^ 


fc 


"-' 


t. 


— ' 


< 





< 


C < 


u < 


U < 


< 


C5 < 





QJ 


QJ 




































. 




> 


> 




































M 




< 


< 


13 




x: 


x: 






x: 


x: 


> 




> 














u 

QJ 




x: 


£. 


ti 




XJ 


XI 


x: 




X) 


xl 


•H 




■H 














x: Eh 




x> 


XI 


ro 




in 


(N 


X) 




in 


in 


C 




c 




JZ 










-P 




00 


CO 


(N 




•-^ 


t-\ 


rH 




r-i 


•-i 


D 


QJ 

13 


D 


QJ 

13 


xl 

00 










in x: 

CM XI 




a 


w 


3 




W 


s 






w 


w 


. 


-H 


. 


•H 






>»H 






VD 




CO 


2 


2 




CO 


2 


3 

2 




2 


2 


W 


in 





tn 


w 

2 


XI 


MH 







2 




MH 


t4H 


>*H 




4H 


14H 






IXI 


14H 


HH 


x: 


>tH 


x: 




to 


XI 


• 


• 


W 





















HH 















x> 

3 





xl 
u 


y-i 



13 


3 
U 


XI 

CO 


!h 


'2 




^ 


^ 


^ 




^ 


.V 






^ 


Ai 


^ 





.^ 







C 






QJ 


-P 13 




u 


u 


u 




u 


u 


^ 




u 





u 


CO 


u 


2 


a: 


r-i 


c x: 


H 


CO C 


c 



















u 




















u 







XJ 




to 





•-\ 


<-\ 


•-i 




rH 


rH 







rH 


rH 


rH 


c 


r-i 


c 


C 


•^ 


XI 


T 


x: 


x: 


•H 


XI 


X! 


XI 




XI 


XI 


rH 




X! 


XI 


X! 





XI 





rH 


2 


03 




-p 


-p » 


XI 








• 






XI 
















X2 




-H 


rt 


in 


in • 


to 











13 










• 








c 


, 





• 


• 


rH 


rH 


CO 


(N 


<N u 


u 











> 


• 


. 





CJ 


• 


• 





QJ 





CJ 


QJ 





rH 






!h 





in 


r^ 


,-\ 


<-i 


rH XI 


in XI 





> 


r-i XI 


rH XI 


^D 


> 





> 


> 


c. 


-rl 


XI 


U 


W QJ 


K^ 


•-\ 


•-\ 


<N 


a 


•-^ CO 


r-^ CO 


00 


< 


rt CO 


ro CO 


(N 


< 


CN 


< 


-H < 


rH 


g 


(0 


CO 


2 Eh 



>1 









U 























in 


c 










c 


to 










Q) 


s 


to 






M 


13 




c 






Q) 


M 


tn 


01 


QJ 




s 


(0 


tri 


13 


to 










G 


U 


3 




K 




-rl 


(0 









to 


M 


CJ 






>i 


-H 


Ol 








13 


c 


CO 


>H 


X) 




QJ 


QJ 




QJ 


QJ 


QJ 


G 


13 


C 


> 


tn 


e 


G 


U 


QJ 


u 


G 


(0 


0) 


ro 


rH 


(0 


3 


2 


« 





CJ 


CJ 


CO 



CJ 


c 


G 


tn 


01 


QJ 


3 


CJ 


QJ 





u 


U 


— 








G 


Q) 


Xl 





CT^ 


CO 


N 


to 


QJ 


r-t 


rH 


U 


)~i 


•-t 


U 





■H 





"^Z 


> 


a^ 



QJ 


tn 





3 


(0 





^^ 


13 


^ 


(0 


QJ 


QJ 


£h 


S 


Q) 


QJ 


x; 


G 


ro 


•H 


J ■ 


a. 



tTi 


en 




C 


c 




-H 


-H 




CO 


x; tn 


^ 


3 


Sh 3 


Sh 





10 


fO 


— 


cu x: 


O4 


x; >, 


>i 


13 


U rH 


C rH 


C 


10 u 


■H Sh 


fO 


iu 


x: a 


rH 


13 


to 13 


T3 


J^ :-* 


C '-I 





(0 01 


3 CJ 


C 


^ 


to ^ 


Ti 



Sh 









C 


QJ 


ro 


G 


^ 


-H 




04 


tiJ 






■P 


■r| 


tn 


i-i 


CJ 





u 


S-l 


u 


d 





u 


iu 



5C 



TABLE XVIII 

VACANCY STATUS FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING, 1973 
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 



Total Year Number on Vacancy 

Name Units Completed Waiting List Vacancies Ratio 



(Rent 

Supplement, 
Interest 
Subsidy) 

Kennedy 



Homes 




172 


1968 


15 










Gardenia 
Gardens 




100 


1968 


55 


(est.) 








Glen Sprii 
Manor 


rigs 


136 


1969 







21 


0.154 


Carver 
Gardens 




100 


1970 


120 










Sunset 
House 




40 


1971 


- 










Village 
Green 




100 


197l' 










Forrest 
Green 




100 


1972 
J 


150 


(est.) 


— 


~ 


Horizon 
House 

(Public) 

Lake 

Terrace 


40 1971 
Total Rent Supplement 
and Interest Subsidy 

100 1960 


18 
358 


(est.) 








Pine 
Meadows 




80 


1970 


- 




- 


- 


Oak Park 
(Elderly) 




101 


1970 


- 




- 


- 


Woodland 
Park 




170 


1970 


- 




- 


- 


Sunshine 

Park 

(Elderly) 




70 


1972 


^ 




_ 


^ 


Forrest 
Pine 




36 


1970 


-■ 




- 


- 


Caroline 
Manor 




28 


1971 











Total for all Public Housing 1,539 



Source: Planning Division, Department of Community Development, 
June, 1973. 



51 



Furthermore, a recent ruling by the Florida State Legislature 
grants all legal rights to those persons 18 years of age. As 
a result, many freshman and sophomores are not restricted to 
live on campus. Without additional construction of low and 
moderate income housing, the commiunity might be faced with an 
even graver problem than presently exists. 

It has been estimated by the Department of Community Develop- 
ment that there are presently some 1,700 vacant, decent, safe, 
and sanitary dwelling units in the City. The exact number of 
single family and multi family type dwellings is undetermined. 
The 1970 Census reported 966 year round units vacant for rent. 
The vast majority of such housing is doubtless beyond the 
financial ability of of poverty and below poverty families to 
secure. In June, the Housing Board reported that the commu- 
nity needed 1,800 units to house low income families. A 
Kansas City Plan or housing allov;ance has been suggested by 
the Housing Board to aid these groups while assisting the City 
in achieving its housing goals. 22 

Poverty Status of Famiilies and Households 

Lack of m.obility, hence accessability , of Blacks and poor Whites 
to various areas of the City where such units are located might 
be a problem in this solution, not only because of race, in a 
social context, but also because of economic ability. Of the 
13,689 families in the City in 19f.9 , there were 18 percent or 
2,480 families that were Black and 82 percent or 11,209 White 
famiilies, according tc the 1970 Census. The percentage of 
these families receiving public assistance income was 13 per- 
cent for Blacks and less than one percent for Whites. Especially 
critical is the fact that of the 1,917 families with incomes less 
than poverty level, 1,031 or 54 percent are Black, while 886 or 
46 percent are White. In addition, there were 4,034 households 
below the poverty level, 2,6 01 (64 percent) of which were white. 
Further comparisons of poverty characteristics of families, 
households, and persons in Gainesville between Blacks and Whites 
yield similar results. (SEE APPENDIX TABLES 3 and 4) The 
national poverty threshold in 1969 for a non-farm family of four 
was $3,743.33 

Census data for 1970 points out the financial characteristics 
of owner occupied housing in the City by Census Tract. (SEE 
APPENDIX TABLE 7) Of the 974 poverty status ($3,743) owner- 
occupied households (v/hich is 10.7 percent of all ov/ner-occupied 
households), 545 or 57.6 percent are Black. Most Blacks pay 
a higher percentage of their annual income for buying homes. ^ 

As a consequence, a smaller proportion is spent for food, 
clothing, transportation, recreation, and other amenities. 
The median dollar value of housing units in 1970 for Blacks 
was reported at $9,600; while for the City it was $15,800, 
according to thel970 Census. 



52 



As reported in the FKA Techniques of Housing Market Analysis ^ 
by the U. S. Departirient of Housing and Urban Development, in 
areas in the northeast region of Florida, the vast majority, 
if not all, of its families with annual incomes less than $6,000 
tend to pay an amount of up to 3 or more times their annual in- 
comes for the purchase of homes. The ratio is around 2.5 times 
annual income for higher income groups. 

It is also significant to note that renters in the lover income 
ranges pay a m.uch higher percentage of their income for rent. 
Of those with inccmies less than $5,000, 85 percent pay more 
than 25 percent of their income for rent. For those with incomes 
below $10,000, 64 percent pay miore than one-fourth of their 
income for rent. In the same category for Blacks, the percentage 
is almost 88 percent. 

In the category of renter-occupied housing, of 9,242 households, 
there are 1,647 or 18 percent that are Black, and 7,595 or 82 
percent others. Most significant is the amount of monthly rent 
paid in 1970 by all the City's households. For the City as a 
whole, the median gross rent was $119, v/hile for Blacks it v;as $6S 
For Black households below the poverty level, the median gross ren- 
was not given. Thus, the need for a housing allov/ance or rent 
supplerant housing programi particularly for poor Blacks and 
poor Whites becomes more apparent. 

In addition, it is significant in noting that of the 1,917 

poverty level families, 761 are families v;ith a female head, 
and that 584 or 77 percent of these are Black. (SEE APPENDIX 
TABLES 3 and 4) 

Any housing policy or program devised should come only after 
serious consideration of these socio-economic factors. For 
the groups mcentioned, the provision of decent, safe and sani- 
tary housing alone is not a panacea, but must be accompanied 
by other supportive services such as child care, legal aid, 
low-cost transportation, employment, etc. 

Table XIX gives a comparison of dv;elling unit counts by the 
1970 Census of Housing of the Gainesville Urban Area and the 
City of Gainesville Building Permits (1972). It reveals a 
gradual decrease in the percentage of single family units con- 
structed from 1970 to 1972. Conversely, there has been a slight 
increase in the percentage of multi fam.ily units and mobile homes, 
The City's Land Use Plan "^ (1970) states that several factors in- 
fluence the arastic change in dwelling unit composition in the 
Urban Area. The most significant one it lists, as obvious, is 
cost. Due to cost of building materials, land and labor, the 
traditional single family house is nov; beyond the reach of many. 

This fact bears significance in that alternative types of housing 
that must be considered in relation to present zoning for such 
types. For example, figures reveal that the majority of existing 
mobile homes are in the Urban Area but not in the City proper. 



r 



[ 



i 

L 



It must be pointed out that there has been no zoning for such 
housing type to any significant degree. 



County 

The Alachua County Housing Authority has constructed five pro- 
jects. The list below shows the towns where these five (5) 
public housing projects are located, in Alachua County. 



Town 

Archer 

Hawthorne 

Newberry 

Waldo 

Alachua 



Units 



30 
40 
30 
20 
8£ 
Total 200 



TABLE XIX 



BY U 



comparison of dvjelling unit counts 
ce::sus bureau and Gainesville's building permits 
city of gainesville, florida 



Type 

Single Family 13,216 

Multi Family 9,418 

Mobile Homes 6 20 



City of 
Gainesville 
Building Permits 



U. S. Bureau 
of the 
Census* 



56.83 12,617 

40.50 7,347 

2.67 345 



62.13 

36.18 
1.70 



Total 23,254 



100.0 20,309 



100.0 



Source: Compiled by the Planning Division, Department of 
Community Development from the building permit re- 
cords (1970-1972) of the City of Gainesville and 
the U. S. Bureau of Census, 1970. 



Totals reflect figures for Census Tracts 9 and 13. 



54 



In June of 1973 the were .142 applicants for this public housing 
on the waiting list. The Alachua County Housing Authority had 
a pending application for 200 additional units of public housing 
prior to the federal housing freeze. The Authority pointed out 
that 58 percent of the currently housed families had female 
heads. All of the towns listed above contain day care facilities, 
with the exception of Ualdo. 

Alachua County does not presently have a minimum housing code. 
It has been recommended that when such a code is adopted, the 
County give 60 to 90 days notice in requiring property owners 
to upgrade their structures because of the shortage of low 
income units. In addition, it was strongly advised that 
demolitions should be v/ithheld until other decent, safe, and 
sanitary housing is made available. The County's present 
building code does not affect existing old and blighted dwel- 
lings . 

The States Role 

The report Housing in Florida pointed out five (5) alternatives 
considered in developing a State Housing Plan. They include: 

(1) Cash vouchers, 

(2) Housing vouchers, 

(3) Public housing, 

(4) State support of low income mortgages, and 

(5) Tax abatements to landlords. 

The report states that alternatives (1) , (2) , and (5) involve 
a degree of consumer choice, while (3) and (4) require a major 
physical planning role for the State. The housing finance agency 
was evaluated as being m.ost equitable. 

Further, the report noted that because of zoning and other problems 
it is frequently difficult for sponsors of housing to acquire sites 
that V7ill meet HL'D/FHA site selection criteria. In the article 
"Emerging Social Problems," Cities in a Race With Time , 10 Jean 
R. Lowe points out that zoning has always been used as a negative 
tool, which is largely done to benefit only the single family 
type dweller. However, the report concluded from a survey that 
38 percent of the local housing authorities report that they have 
really had "no trouble" in acquiring a site that met HUD/FHA site 
selection criteria. 



Alternative Programs in Housing 

The U. S. Congress passed and the President signed, the Housing 
and Urban Development Act of 1970. One of its major components 



55 



was Section 501, which stated' "... The Secretary shall under- 
take on an experimental basis a program to demonstrate the 
feasibility of providing families of low income v/ith housing 
allowances to assist them in obtaining rental housing of their 
choice in existing standard housing units. "15- 

Kansas City Plan* 

In 1969, the m.odel cities agencies in Kansas City, Missouri and 
Wilmington, Delaware decided to fund relatively small-scale 
housing allowances experiments. Enrollment of the allowance 
families for the three year programs got under v/ay in 19 71. 
Under this program the government pays the difference between 
25 percent of an eligible tenant's adjusted income and the 
market price of the standard unit which the tenant finds and 
rents . 

The Kansas City Plan, directed by Joe L. riattox, established a 
maximum rental amount schedule. After the first years program 
evaluation, he reported in "Rent Allowances"!^ that the program 
was a complete success. Even though the maximum rent allowable 
for an efficiency unit is $75, the average payment has been 
only $62. For a one bedroom unit, the m.aximum is $125 and the 
average payment has been $9 4. The m.aximum for a two bedroom 
unit is $15 and the average payment has been $113. The maximum 
for a three bedroom unit was $200 and the average payment has 
been $143. For the four bedroom unit, there was a maximum 
rental allowance of $210. 

Program evaluation also reveals that the program has given some 
low income families a choice of decent housing, be it in a house 
or an apartment, in the city or the suburbs. Most important is 
the fact that since the families had a choice, they have not 
satuarted blocks nor do they pose a threat to neighborhood 
stability and real estate. The City of Gainesville's current 
vacancy ratio for higher priced nulti family type dwelling would 
be a factor of major importance in the success of this particular 
housing program. Actualization of such housing allowance program 
would fall in line with v;hat Alice M. Rivlan in Systematic 
Thinking for Social Action calls "system.atic experiments" vrith 
different ways of delivering social services. 12 

Ohio Fair-Share Plan 

The Dayton Plan was devised to equitably distribute a regions 
allotment of subsidized housing betw^een the various communities 
in that region. The plan was unanimously adopted in September, 

* Just prior to this report going to press, the Gainesville City 
Commission approved the expenditure of a modest sum of revenue 
sharing funds for an experimental program based on tl^e so called 
"Kansas City Plar. " 



56 



1970, by the elected officials serving on the 42 member Miami 
Valley Regional Planning Commission (MVRPC), who developed the 
plan. 

In Gainesville, as well as in major cities across the country, 
such as Detroit, Chicago, Newark, Harlem, and Watts, it becomes 
easy for planners to determine that there exists a shortage of 
sound low and moderate income housing units in the city. Dif- 
ficulty arises in deciding how to allocate the greatly needed 
housing to the communities of the city. 

MVRPC ' s Ann Shafor, in an article by Lois Craig, "The Dayton 
Area's 'Fair Share' Housing Plan Enters the Implimentation 
Phase, "1^ outlines a six factor allocation method based on the 
regions 53 "planning units." The method entails: 

(1) Equal share; 

(2) Proportionate share of the county's households; 

(3) Proportionate share of the county's households making 
less that $10,000 annually (or less than $7,000 in the 
three more rural counties); 

(4) The inverse of (3) ; 

(5) A share based on the assessed evaluation per pupil 
of the school districts covering the planning units; 
and 

(6) A share based on the relative overcrowding of the 
school districts. 

Upon evaluation, Ms. Shafor subm.its that "for the purposes of 
the initial housing plan, a six factor allocation method has 
proven relatively satisfactory, although not perfect." She 
further pointed out that the important things are: "First, 
that the distribution was m>ade in hard figures and second, 
that the formula reflected enough factors to make it sensi- 
tive to a few critical characteristics of the planning units." 
Since Gainesville has no legal suburbs, this plan might be 
facilitated on a regional level. 



New Tov:ns 

"New Towns" are now being planned or built throughout the U. S. 
The initial concept was developed by Ebenezer Howard in the 
1880 's in Britian. A New Town writes William K. VThite in Th^ 
Last Landscape ^l is a planned corjnunity that is balanced alor.g 
social, economic, and racial lines, encompassing maximum use 
of open-space and green-belts , and local enplovment. 

Two of the most notable ones are located in Colurribia, Maryland 
and Res ton, Virginia. Since Columbia com.os closer to meetin-r 



57 



this idea of a "balanced" cornmunity, attention is focused 
briefly on it here, as it related to this housing study. 

Columbia, Maryland lies halfway along the Washington-Baltimore 
corridor and had a population of 10,000 as of January, 1971. 
This New Town has been planned to encompass 110,000 residents, 
and enough industry to be self-supporting. In "A City Made 
to Human Measure,"^! John Dominis presents photographs and 
comments on the housing types and the diverse architectural 
designs . 

Columbia has m^ade tremendous headway in providing decent housing 
for lov; income households. It has the first federally subsidized 
housing units within a New Town, designed as townhouses, in the 
country. Space v/as made available for 300 of such housing types 
for poorer families in Columbia. The rents range from $99 month- 
ly for a one bedroom apartment to $151.50 for a four bedroom 
townhouse, including heat, air conditioning and utilities. The 
homes overall fall in the price range of $15,000 to $128,000. 

The three housing programs discussed herein are just a few of 
the many alternatives and not panaceas, which cities through- 
out the country have adopted or may consider implem.enting. 
The issue the City of Gainesville is faced with is which of 
the sound alternative methods it will choose to actualize. 



58 



u 



it 



CHAPTER 7 

COMPARISONS OF HOUSING STUDIES RESULTS 

A part of the proposed methodology of this study was to make a 
comparison of the City of Gainesville' s29 and the North Central 
Florida Regional Planning Council's (NCFRPC)30 findings on 
housing conditions in Gainesville, Florida. Considerable dif- 
ferences appear in the data of the two agencies. This study 
focuses on the City, v/hile NCFRPC ' s concentrates on the Gaines- 
ville Urban Area (GUA) . 

Data for analysis in the City of Gainesville's housing survey 
was acquired from the inspection records of the Housing Division, 
Department of Communtiy Development and by actual field survey. 
The NCFRPC study was based upon the records of the Alachua County 
Tax Assessor. 

The NCFRPC study utilized a rating scale of through 100 in 
designating the residential structure conditions in the GUA. 
These ratings, found in the Alachua County Tax Assessor records, 
are based on the general structural condition of the buildings, 
as well as age. Units rated between and 59 were considered to 
be dilapidated, 60 - 79 deteriorating , and 80 and above sound. This 
breakdown was tested by sample field survey. It was felt that 
they should be at least as accurate an indicator as a complete 
field survey would be. 

The Housing Division, City of Gainesville, used a rating scale 
of 1 to 5 to designate the physical condition of each dv/elling 
unit. Inspectors were told to completely avoid any other 
physical environment deficiencies. These include rubble in the 
front yard and/or on the porch, lack of adequate landscaping 
and buffering between adjacent structures, inappropriated 
setback requirements, etc. 

With all of these factors taken into consideration, one may 
move toward a comparison of our sources of data. For clarity, 
it must be re-emphasized the NCFRPC ' s findings are based on 
the GUA, while this report focuses on the City only. 

Results of NCFRPC 's study on housing conditions in the GUA 
reveal that 19.1 percent of the rated residential structures 
were rated as dilapidated, 18.1 percent as deteriorating, and 
62.8 percent as sound. (SEE f-lAP 14) As was noted in NCFRPC ' s 
study, the proportion of units classified as dilapidated appears 
high because these percentages apply to structures, rather than 
units. By applying the number of structures rated less than 60 
to the total number of dwelling units in the GUA, they found 
approximcately 10 percent of the housing units were dilapidated. 

By com.parison, the findings of the City show that of the total 
number of units rated 1 through 5 th?t thore is 0.2 percent 
dilapidated, 3 percent needing major repair, 2 percent needing 



59 



r 



^' 



^ 






minor repair, 11 percent with minor or slight defects (standard) , 
and 84 percent standard or surpassing the City's minimum housing 
code. These findings appear relatively unalarming until we com- 
pare them with the individual percentages of housing condition 
ratings for each enumeration district in the City. 

Another comparison might be made in regards to the average 
housing conditions rating for each census tract. Using the 
averages (mean) as the sole basis, it may be said that Tracts 
1, 2, 6, 7 were the most blighted of fourteen studied. The 
rationale for this statement being that in each of these tracts, 
the average (mean) housing condition rating fell below the City's 
average (mean) dwelling unit rating of 4.8. 

Through measuring housing conditions in the Gainesville Urban 
Area by the average residential structural condition rating, 
the NCFRPC reported Census Tracts 1, 2, and 5 as being the 
worst. (SEE MAP 14) These tracts had an average rating that 
was less than 60. As is evident, both studies come up with 
two of the same tracts, numbers 1 and 2. The City's m.ethod 
of rating the physical housing conditions was considered to 
be much more reliable and valid, in as much as it was specif- - 
ically based on a condition survey, whereas the NCFRPC study 
was based on data gathered for another purpose. 

Lastly, a comparison was made of the total number of dwelling 
units in census tracts reported by the City's Housing Division, 
the U. S. Bureau of Census, and the North Central Florida 
Regional Planning Council. (SEE TABLE XX). 

The various percentages of error intrinsic to making total 
counts of housing units in the City must be given careful 
consideration in making comparisons among the three sources 
of data. This varies accordingly to the time frame in which 
the studies were conducted. Also, differences in dwelling 
unit counts occur by way of the methodology used; v/hereas , 
one source may count units into the total housing stock vrhen 
it is only partially constructed, uninhabited, or simply miss 
a unit; the other might not. 

In conclusion, it was found that the figures given by the Housing 
Division generally compare favorably with those reported by the 
1970 Census. Numerical differences, as in the Housing Division's 
figures, may appear greater in one tract and less in another 
than the 1970 Census ' figures but generally can be explained 
upon detailed analysis. 



60 



f 






i. 








p <^ = ►; u. ^ 
t- i^ p J u C, 

iZ '' ■* I^ '^ "^ 



l-l ^ E < Ik O 
S < X J i«^ 



(0 


z 

< 

X - 

D "^ 

h3 



10 1^ 



0. 
< 

2 



C -J 0) 
h ^- 

J? 

< < 

- 

h 

Z 

u 
9 



h 

< 

(J) < 

D O 

(/) 2 

Z 3 

u 

m 



CO 



h 



m 

D 
Z 

h 


< 

a: 
h 

(i) 

D 
(0 

z 
u 





-? 


^" 


0) 


0) 




g 


Ifi 


1 


1 


1 





u 





CD 


(D 



r 

I 

E 

I 



r 



r 



p. 



TABLE XX 

COMPARISON OF DWELLING UNIT COUNTS IN CENSUS TRACTS* 
BY HOUSING DIVISION, U. S. CENSUS BUREAU AND 
NORTH CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL 
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 



TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS 





Housing 








Tract 


Division 


1970 Census 


Difference 


NCFRPC° 


1 


275 


279 


4 


297 


2 


2,910 


2,432 


478 


3,167 


3 


2,361 


2,467 


106 


2,469 


4 


1,911 


1,594 


317 


1,642 


5 


1,182 


1,978 


796 


1,943 


6 


2,236 


1,309 


927 


1,539 


7 


1,767 


1,794 


27 


2,652 


8 


2,148 


1,896 


252 


1,957 


9 


- 


984 





- 


10 


2,061 


2,242 


187 


2,518 


11 


725 


553 


172 


950 


12 


950 


814 


136 


1,210 


16 


1,306 


1,241 


65 


1,355 


17 


660 


654 


6 


1,404 



CITY 20,492 20,237 255 23,130 

Source: Housing survey (1972) by the Housing Division, Depart- 
ment of Comir.unity Development, City of Gainesville; 
U. S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and 
Housing: 1970 Census Tracts , Gainesville, Florida; 
North Central Florida Regional Planning Council's 
study on Housing Conditions (1972) . 

° Figures are given for the Gainesville Urban Area. (-) 
University ov/ned, tax exemipt housing not included. 

* Census Tracts 9, 13, 14, and 15 do not contain any private 
housing, and thus were not included. 

62 



CHAPTER 8 

CONCLUSIONS AND SOME PRELIMINARY POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 

The purpose of this qualitative analysis of housing is to serve 
as a useful tool in identifying the most blighted geographic 
areas of the City of Gainesville. Of the City's 20,492 units, 
only 42 were found to be completely dilapidated, while 6 31 were 
in need of major repair. Only two counties in the State, Orange 
and Seminole, have a better ratio of subsidized housing units 
to poverty level families. Considering that most of the sub- 
sidized units are in the City and comparing the County's poverty 
families, the picture is even better. 

Although this study gives detailed information and facts as to 
the condition of housing units, it does not provide the data 
that expresses the "feeling of community idenity," a social 
and traditional value which can not be easily appraised by 
appearance alone or in relation to dollars and cents. 

This study utilized for its aforementioned purpose, in combina- 
tion with the Environm.ental and Social Indicator Study , prepared 
by the Department of Community Development, should be given the 
most serious and careful evaluation by decision-makers before 
any attempt is made at developing a comprehensive housing policy 
or program for the City. Housing is an area of continuous 
attention in the City's planning program, and Housing Policy 
and Program Development is the name of a major continuous study 
elem.ent under which specific policies and programs will come 
under consideration. 

Even with the establishment of the Gainesville Housing Authority 
in 1966 and subsequent subsidized private ventures, there has 
not been an adequate increase in the total number of housing 
units constructed in the City for low and moderate income families 
and households. Despite the City's active pursuit of its housing 
goal to provide standard housing for all of its citizens, a 
shortage still exists. Many poverty level families are not 
capable of securing decent, safe, and sanitary housing because of 
financial restraints. In addition, a significant numiber of families 
and households can not afford to purchase homes at present 
m.ortgage interest rates, even if federal funding v/as available. 
As is apparent from the findings in this study, neither the 
provision of public housing nor the provision for mobile homes 
will be a cure-all for the City's housing problem.. Housing 
alternatives which encompass broad supportive services would 
be most desirable. The City of Gainesville will need additional 
financial assistance if it is to rid itself completely of sub- 
standard housing. 

Urban renewal, as performed in other cities in the past, has 
proven to be a long and tedious process and frequently only 
transferred the housing problem from one to another geographical 
location. Urban planner and architect, Carl Feiss, in "Inner 



63 



i 

I 

r 



city Blues" by the Gainesville Sun , submits that "what we haven't 
learned is how to replace over-used buildings without destroying 
the element of the neighborhood. "25 

Desparately needed housing for these groups must be constructed 
in non-concentrated areas, which may subsequently stimulate the 
City's growth and the "filtering" down of housing to different 
income groups. A policy implication inherent here is that the 
construction of low and mioderate housing would mandate the 
concept of a "balanced" community rather than two apart and 
separate ones, states Canty in A Single Society: Alternatives 
to Urban Apartheid , 9 1969. In 1968, the report of the National 
Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders stated that "Our nation 
is moving toward two societies, one Black, one White - separate 
and unequal . " 

The majority of the poor families in larger cities such as 
Detroit, Newark, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Harlem, etc., live in 
the "inner city," v^hereas in Gainesville, the majority of such 
families are geographically located near the City's periphery. 

The Housing Board22 noted that the only solution to the ghetto 
problem would be the distribution of lov/ income families in 
either "mini-projects" or in individual dwellings throughout 
the middle income community which is racially segregated. It 
submits that for success, social and economic elements must 
be considered and maxim.um input and public acceptance must 
be secured. If the Housing Board's proposal were to be imple- 
mented, it would call for the removal of any zoning obstacles 
which m.ay exist in implementing a housing plan, and more 
importantly, to overcom.e the high cost of land which frequently 
provides the most significant barrier. These obstacles were 
reported to exist in Black Jack, Missouri and other cities by 
Harry Waters in a Newsv:eek special report entitled "The Battle 
of the Surburbs."2I3 

Regretably, the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop- 
ment has curtailed its funding of all federal housing programs. 
Such was prompted by the rash of mismanagement and scandalous 
activities of private sponsors and federal appraisers as reported 
by Jerry M. Flint in a New York Times article entitled "Romney 
Says His Agency Can't Solve Housing Problem; Concedes Errors. "14 
This will, of course, have significant influence on any housing 
program devised. 

A lack of economic development in the highly concentrated Black 
suburban areas, as well as the older Black communities of the 
City, in comjnercial and retail enterprises, has a direct in- 
fluence on the type of employment, the level of unemployment 
and underemployment. Such development would inevitably generate 
employment for this sector of the overall community and hopefully 
stimulate some training programiS by entrepreneurs throughout the 
City for the unemployed, underemiployed,and unskilled within the 
area. 



64 



Finally, the City of Gainesville can not truly reflect on its 
record of clearance or removal of substandard and dilapidated 
dwelling units from the City with pride until it has accordingly 
mustered both public and private sectors in providing needed 
housing for all of its ill-housed. Thus, strong enforcement 
of the Housing Code, in itself, is not enough. This must be 
coupled with more concrete financial support and cooperation 
among the City, County, and State governments, in that order. 

Each of the issues and problems stated herein, must be considered 
and assessed thoroughly in prescribing any housing plan for the 
City of Gainesville. It is extremely important to remem±)er that 
housing must not be dealt with singularly, but in regards to 
other social, economic, and political factors as addressed in 
this report, and even more throughly in the Environmental and 
Social Indicator Study , recently completed by the Department 
of Community Developm.ent . 



65 



CHAPTER 9 

RECOilMENDATIONS 



These recommendations are given in light of the policy-relevant 
research findings of this housing study. The include the 
following: 

(1) Neighborhood survey be conducted to measure the "sense 
of corrimunity" feelings of residents in geographical 
areas designated for concentrated attention before 

any attempt at wholesale land acquisition or clearance. 

(2) Immediate construction of low and moderate income 
housing units be encouraged, combined with the acquisi- 
tion of open space land for parks and playgrounds, and 
urban beautif ication projects, to meet current and 
future needs of the poorly housed. Such housing must 
be within the financial means of low and moderate 
income groups, accessable to employment, public 
transportation, schools, shopping centers and other 
amenities . 

(3) "Maximum feasible participation" in policy planning by 
the residents in designated blighted areas, which might 
be subject to any housing programs or redevelopment. 

(4) Low and moderate income housing must be dispersed 
throughout the City to avoid further concentration 
among various segments of the Comjnunity with a mini- 
mum amount of social, economic, and psychological 
conflict. 

(5) Monitor closely the experimentation with the Kansas 
City Housing Allowance Plan/ which will be conducted 
using Revenue Sharing Funds. 

(6) Revisions of the zoning ordinance, currently underv/ay, 
include measures where feasible to insure that no 
unnecessary constraints are placed on the construction 
of lov: cost housing. Positive measures aimed at re- 
ducing costs, such as PUD ordinances, sh.ould be encouraged 
Consideration should also be given to requiring that a 
certain percentage of lov; cost housing units be required 
with large projects, v;ith or v/ithout incentives such as 
allov;ing density bonuses. 

(7) Large as opposed to small scale economic development 
of the concentrated black community. Seek suoport of 
the local businesses and the Office of Minority Business 
Enterprises (OMEE) , in V7ashington, D. C. 

(8) The possibility of zoning additional land for mobile 
hom.e use, including mobile home subdivisions in the 



66 



City to accommodate interested families and households 
unable to afford the market price of a privately con- 
structed unit should be explored. 

(9) Coordination by the City and County governments in 
efforts to improve low income housing with emphasis 
on the improvement of personal, social, and economic 
conditions for low income groups. 

(10) Utilization of revenue sharing funds in addition to 
any other available funding sources, such as non- 
profit groups and banks, to assist home-ovjners with 
rehabilitation grants for upgrading their property in 
accordance to the City's mimimum Housing Code. 

(11) A concentrated employment study should be conducted 
on the most blighted areas discussed in this housing 
study . 

(12) Increase the residential areas of choice for minority 
groups, while increasing their percentages in owner- 
occupied units. 

(13) Low income neighborhoods, which frequently can not 
petition for community improvements (such as street 
paving) due to limited incomes, should be given 
priority consideration in the allocation of revenue 
sharing or other sources of funds. 



67 



REFERENCES 
■ General 

(1) Inspection Records of the Housing Division, Department 
of Coininunity Development, City of Gainesville, Florida, 
1972. 

(2) Housing Code, Chapter 15-A. Code of Ordinances , City of 
Gainesville, Florida, 1960. 

(3) City of Gainesville Building Permits, 1970-1973. 

(4) City of Gainesville. Land Use Plan, 1970 , Gainesville 
Urban Area, Gainesville, Florida. 

(5) Planning Division, Department of Community Development* 
Comprehensive Development Plan, 1970 , Gainesville Urban 
Area, Gainesville, Florida. 

(6) U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. FHA 
Techniques of Housing Market Analysis . Washington, D. C: 
U. S. Government Printing Office, 1972. 

Books 

(7) Miller, Delbert C. Handbook of Research Design and Social 
Measurement , 2nd Edition, New York: David McKay Company, 
Inc., 1970. 

(8) Robinson, Ira M. (ed.). "Chicago Model Cities Program.; Five- 
Year Forecast," Decision Making in Urban Planning (An Intro- 
duction to New Methodologies), Beverly Hills: Sage Publica- 
tions, 1972. 

(9) Canty, Donald. A Single Society: Alternatives to Urban 
Apartheid , New York: Proeger Publishers, 1968. 

(10) Lov^e, Jeanne R. "Emerging Social Problems," Cities in a 
Race With Time , New York: Vintage Books, 196 8. 

(11) Whyte, "William H. "The New Towns," The Last Landscape , 
New York: Doubleday and Company, 1970. 

(12) Rivlin, Alice M. System.atic Thinking for Social Action , 
Washington, D. C: The Brookings Institution, 1971. 

(13) Cam.pbell, Alan K. (ed.). The States and the Urban Crisis , 
The American Assem.bly, Cclum.bia University, Englewood Cliffs, 
N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970. 

Periodicals 

(14) Flint, Jerry M. "Romney Says His Agency Can't Solve 
Housing Problems; Concedes Errors," The Npw York Times , 

(March, 1972), Section 20:3. 



63 



r 
f 



(15) Beckham, Robert. "The Experimental Housing Allowance 
Program," Journal of" Housing , No. 1, (January, 19 73), 
pp. 12-17. 

(16) Mattox, Joe L. "Rent Allowances," Journal of Housing , 
No. 9, (October, 1971), pp. 482-487. 

(17) "Newark," Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), (July, 1971), 
pp. 16-20. 

(18) Zelnick, C. Robert. "Gibson of Newark: Quiet Diplomat on 
a Racial Battleground," City , (January/February, 1972), 
pp. 10-22. 

(19) Craig, Lois. "The Dayton Area's 'Fair Share' Housing 
Plan Enters the Implementation Phase," City , (January/ 
February, 1972) ,pp^ 50-56. 

(20) Waters, Harry. "The Battle of the Suburbs," Newsweek 
Special Report, (November 15, 1971), pp. 61-70. 

(21) Dominis , John. "A City Made to Human Measure," Life , 
Vol. 70, No. 1, (January 8, 1971), pp. 76-83. 

(22) Gainesville Housing Board. "Annual Report to the City 
Commission," (May 1972-May, 1973). 

(23) Gainesville Housing Board. "The Gainesville Housing 
Board - 19 7 3," Memorandum, (June 7, 1973) 

(24) Housing Division "Report - First Cycle Housing Code 
Enforcement 1966-1972," Memorandumt, (January 4, 1973). 

Survevs , Studies 

(25) Perez, Skip and Stacey Bridges. "Inner City Blues," 
Special Report, Gainesville Sun , (February 27, 1972). 

(26) Woodbury, Colem.an and Frederick Gutheim. Paper Prepared 
for the 1949 National Conference on Family Life. 

(27) Planning Department, Gainesville, Florida. Gainesville 
Neighborhood Analysis , 1965. 

(28) Department of Comriunity Development, Gainesville, Florida. 
Housing Survey, 1969. 

(29) Housing Division, Departmient of Comm.unity Development, 
Gainesville, Florida. Housing Survey, 1972. 

(30) North Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Gaines- 
ville , Florida. Housing Conditions , 1972. 



69 



M 



I'i 



(1 



h 



u 



L 



(31) Alachua County Department of Health, Alachua County 
Florida. Housing Survey, 1967. 

(32) The Office of the Governor, the Governor's Task Force 
on Housing and Community Development, and the State 
of Florida, Department of Community Affairs. Housing 
in Florida, Vols. 1-5, 1972. 



Census Data 

(33) U. S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Population and 
Housing: 1970 Census Tracts , Gainesville, Florida, 
Washington, D. C: U. S. Government Printing Office, 
1972. 

(34) U. S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Housing; 1970 , 
Vol. I, General Housing Characteristics , Florida, 
Washington, D. C: U. S. Government Printing Office, 
1971. 

(35) U. S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Housing: 1960 , 
Vol.1, States and Small Areas , Florida, Washington, 
D. C: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1962. 

(36) U. S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Housing: 1950 , 
Vol. I, General Characteristics , Florida, Washington, 
D. C: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1952. 

(37) U. S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1970 , 
General Social and Economic Characteristics , Florida, 
Washington, D. C: U. S. Government Printing Office, 
1972. 

(38) U. S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Housing: 1970 , 
Detailed Housing Characteristics , Florida, Washington, 
D. C: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1972. 



70 



U 




Agencies Interviewed and Major Contributors 

Housing Division, Department of Community Development 

Community Affairs Department, City Manager's Office 

North Central Florida Regional Planning Council 

Alachua County Health Department 

Gainesville Housing Authority 

Alachua County Housing Authority 

Gainesville Neighborhood Development, Inc. (GNDI) 

Public Works Department 

Utilities Department 

University of Florida Research Library 

University of Florida Housing Division 

Gainesville Housing Board 

Local Builders, Developers, and Contractors 

Local Banks 



Special Thanks ; 

To the secretarial staff, particularly Mrs. Fletcher, for 
preparing this study. 



DES/ef 



71 



r 

t 



! 



APPENDIX A 



72 



L 



C 



APPENDIX TABLE 1 

HOUSING CONDITION OF CITY AND ENUMERATION DISTRICTS BY UNITS, 1973 
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 







Dilap- 


Major 


Minor 


Minor 










idated 


Repair 


Repair 


Defect 


Standard 


Total 




E.D. 


(1) 


(2) 


(3) 


. (4)" 


(5) 


Units 


(1) 


1618 


2 


6 


2 


2 


62 


74 


(2) 


1619 














736 


736 


(3) 


1620 








4 


38 


659 


701 


(4) 


1621 





6 





3 


391 


400 


(5) 


1622 


1 


7 


22 


61 


638 


729 


(6) 


1623 


2 


5 


12 


23 


506 


548 


(7) 


1624 





3 


10 


29 


535 


577 


(8) 


1625 





14 


21 


34 


438 


507 


(9) 


1626 





5 


14 


63 


868 


950 


(10) 


1627 








1 


1 


723 


725 


(11) 


1628 














660 


660 


(12) 


1629 





5 


1 


2 


752 


760 


(13) 


1630 














546 


546 


(14) 


1631 











3 


408 


411 


(15) 


1632 





6 


2 


6 


576 


590 


(16) 


1633 





1 


13 


3 


302 


319 


(17) 


1634 








1 


20 


158 


179 


(18) 


1635 


2 


1 


34 


82 


443 


562 


(19) 


1640 





3 


1 


4 


38 


46 


(20) 


1641 





5 


1 


9 


612 


1 U 

627 


(21) 


1642 














965 


965 


(22) 


1643 











1 


509 


510 


(23) 


1644 


4 


156 


16 


550 


213 


939 


(24) 


1645 


1 


9 


8 


77 


274 


369 


(25) 


1646 








1 


9 


471 


481 


(26) 


1647 











10 


751 


761 


(27) 


1648 


6 


56 


27 


229 


42 


360 


(28) 


1649 





11 


43 


130 


91 


275 


(29) 


1650 














80 


80 
322 


(30) 


1651 











2 


320 


(31) 


1652 





5 


1 


13 


388 


■J 4. £. 

407 


(32) 


1653 








1 


9 


16 


26 


(33) 


1654 





21 


31 


88 


207 


347 


(34) 


1655 


4 


85 


38 


213 


1,024 


1 3fi^ 


(35) 


1656 


6 


90 


29 


127 


481 


733 


(36) 


1657 


1 


35 


10 


63 


30 


139 


(37) 


1658 


6 


29 


22 


70 


680 


807 


(38) 


1659 





18 


9 


108 


186 


321 


(39) 


1660 


7 


34 


24 , 


146 


115 


32f 


(40) 


1661 





15 


10 


39 


249 


313 



TOTALS 

E.D. 's 

MEANS 

CITY 
MEANS 

Source: 



42 



1.0 



0.20 



631 



15.4 



409 



10.0 



2,267 



17,143 



3.07 



1.99 



55.3 



11.06 



418.1 



13.65 



20,492 



10C% 



Compiled by the Planning Division, Department of Com- 
munity Development from the inspection records of the 
Housing Division, City of Gainesville, Florida. 



73 



APPENDIX TABLE 2 

NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGNATION DESCRIPTIONS 

( GAINESVILLE NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS , 1965) 

CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 



Neighborhood 
Designation 



Description 

Older established neighborhood . These areas make up "Old Gainesville," the 
centrally located, fine old houses of the early years, now often in transition 
to other uses. Built up around the turn of the century, some houses date back 
to 1890. 

Established neighborhood . These areas were the second ring of growth, still 
near the center of the City. Located in the northeast, they were the "suburbs" 
of the 1930 's and 1940 's. 

Newer established neighborhood . These middle and upper income neighborhoods 
are distinguished from more recent subdivisions by their stable, established 
character. Developed since World War II, they contain many professionals 
and faculty members. 

Suburban neighborhood . Suburban areas, developed since the mid 1950 's, are 
recognizable by their newness and appearance of having been built as a unit. 
Located in outlying areas of the City, they have a predominance of middle 
and upper income residents. 

Student neighborhood . Located near the University for the most part, these 
areas contain a high proportion of University students and their families 
along with faculty and others associated with the University, and a number 
of older established residents. 



Source: 27 



Combination neighborhood . Combining characteristics of both established areas 
and informal suburban areas, these neighborhoods primarily house working class 
families, often with small town or rural backgrounds. Some of these are in 
transition to student apartment uses. Development has gone on from the 1930 's 
to the present. 

Suburban Black neighborhood . These suburban areas were developed between 
1957 and 1965, and are located adjacent to schools in the Southeast. 

Older Black neighborhood . Dating back to the 1890 's, these older neighbor- 
hoods have many housing and environmental problems. Although most residents 
have low incomes, there are also middle income and professional people living 
here. 



Mixed areas , 



10 

I 

c 

u 



These areas consist of combinations of commercial or industrial 
uses and residential uses. Many are in transition to non-residential develop- 
ment . 

Apartment neighborhood . These areas have concentrations of apartments planned 
or underway. Probably, most of them will be student neighborhoods when they 
are occupied. 

Industrial area . 

Commercial area . 

Undeveloped area . 



74 



APPENDIX TABLE 3 

POVERTY STATUS IN 1969 OF ALL FAMILIES AND PERSONS: 1970 
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 



All Income Levels 

Families 13,689 

Percent receiving public assistance income 5.5 

Mean size of family 3.36 

With related children under 18 years 7,9 06 

Mean number of related children under 18 years 2.16 

Families with female head 1,917 - 

With related children under 18 years 1,325 

With related children under 6 years 628 

Percent of heads in labor force 71.3 

Family Heads 13,689 

Percent 65 years and over 9.4 

Civilian male family heads under 65 years 10,678 

Percent of heads in labor force 83.6 

Persons 55,969 

Percent receiving Social Security incomie 6.6 

Percent 65 years and over 6.2 

Percent receiving Social Security income 70.1 

Households 18,092 

In owner-occupied housing units 8,850 

Mean value of unit $18,617 

In renter-occupied housing units 9,242 

Mean gross rent $ 123 

Percent lacking some or all plumbing 2.8 



75 



APPENDIX TABLE 3 
(continued) 

POVERTY STATUS IN 19 69 OF FAMILIES AND PERSONS: 1970 
WITH INCOMES LESS THAN POVERTY LEVEL 
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA . 



Families 1,917 

Percent of families 14.0 

Mean family income $ 1,9 42 

Mean income deficit $ 1,549 

Percent receiving public assistance income 20.6 

Mean size of family 3.77 

With related children under 18 years 1,365 

Mean number of related children under 18 years 2.71 

Families with female head 761 

With related children under 18 years 640 

With related children under 6 years 363 

Percent of heads in labor force 64.2 

Family Heads 1,917 

Percent 65 years and over 13.8 

Civilian male family heads under 65 years 986 

Percent of heads in labor force 60.6 

Persons 12,706 

Percent of all persons 22.7 

Percent receiving Social Security income 8.8 

Percent 65 years and over 7.6 

Percent receiving Social Security income 68.5 

Related children under 18 years 3,683 

Percent living with both parents 44.8 



76 



Appendix Table 3 

Poverty Status in 1969 of Families and Persons: 1970 
With Incomes Less Than Poverty Level 
City of Gainesville, Florida 
(continued) 



Households 4,034 

Percent of all households 22.3 

In owner-occupied housing units 947 

Mean value of unit $10,747 

In renter-occupied housing units 3,087 

Mean gross rent $ 118 

Percent lacking som.e or all plumbing facilities 7.6 

Source: 37 



77 



* 



APPENDIX TABLE 4 

POVEPvTY STATUS IN 1969 OF ALL BLACK FAMILIES AND PERSONS: 1970 

CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 



All Income Levels 

Families 

Percent receiving public assistance income 

Mean size of family 

With related children under 18 years 

Mean number of related children under 18 years 
Families with female head 

With related children under 18 years 
With related children under 6 years 
Percent of heads in labor force 
Family Heads 

Percent 65 years and over 
Civilian male family heads under 65 years 

Percent of heads in labor force 
Persons 

Percent receiving Social Security income 
Percent 65 years and over 

Percent receiving Social Security incom.e 
Households 
In owner-occupied housing units 

Mean value of unit 
In renter-occupied housing units 

Mean gross rent 
Percent lacking some or all plumbing 



2,480 
13.3 
4.10 
1,772 

2.76 

939 

747 

430 

71.2 

2,480 

13.5 
1,344 
88.9 
11,368 

7.1 
7.7 
63.1 
3,150 
1,503 
$10,557 
1,647 
$ 70 

12.7 



A 



APPENDIX TABLE 4 
" (continued) 

POVERTY STATUS IN 19 69 OF BLACK FAMILIES AND PERSONS: 19 70 

WITH INCOMES LESS THAN POVERTY LEVEL 

CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 



Families 1,031 

Percent of Families 41.6 
Mean family income $ 2,159 
Mean income deficit $ 1,621 

Percent receiving public assistance income 32.0 

Mean size of family 4.19 

With related children under 18 years 796 

Mean number of related children under 18 years 3.18 

Families with female head 584 

With related children under 18 years 487 

With related children under 6 years 291 

Percent of heads in labor force 68.4 

Family Heads 1,031 

Percent 65 years and over 18.7 

Civilian male family heads under 65 years 343 

Percent of heads in labor force 75.8 

Persons 5,002 

Percent of all persons 44.0 

Percent receiving Social Security income 11.1 

Percent 65 years and over 11.8 

Percent receiving Social Security income 62.4 

Related children under 18 years 2,546 

Percent living with both parents 33.5 



79 



Appendix Table 4 

Poverty Status in 1969 of Black Families and Persons: 1970 
With incomes Less Than Poverty Level 
City of Gainesville, Florida 
(continued) 



Households 1,433 

Percent of all households 45.5 

In owner-occupied housing units 545 

Mean value of unit $ 8,497 

In renter-occupied housing units 888 

Mean gross rent $ 66 

Percent lacking some or all plumbing facilities 18.9 

Source: 37 



80 



vc ^p IT) *^ 00 o . a. 00 o^ 00 r^ ^ u. a> u: v£> ^p 



o\ in I vo I vDv£)i-ivo>x)0(Nrnr-(fNinir)CO 

in i-H (N t~- >H 

m in 



o o rn <-(<-< m 
o in o i-i m vo 

C^ CN C. fvj f-H o 



CO o 


(7> n in 


1— 1 


(N 


«■ to- 


</> V> 



r*- ^* o 00 r** ci 

^ Tp vD c\ \o m 

V£> CN O^ U3 CTt 



«• to- 



vs vo 
to-</>- 



rH i-H 



00 CM in . in 1^ ^ 
m o --4 rsi m o 
rn CO rN ^r m rg 



o I I I I 



o r- 



I Tinr^iocNTvor-cot-iair^ 

■H (NrMOOlNOirHOOin 



^J* 


r- -"T 


ft 


f( r~ 


l£> 


in o 


o 


n m 


OO 


(N -"T 


(N 


ON in 




« ^ 




^ <k 




1^ 1^ 




<N ■<I' 




to- to- 




w> to- 


n 


r- m 


m 


^3* VD 


00 


*X> 00 


00 


lO 00 


in 


<N vO 




^T rH 












r^ r^ 




f( in 




i-H 1— 1 








to- to- 




<n-</>- 



inoinninnoor-jowprMintNinin^ONVo 
'S'CM^cNvoinTinconTj'rHCN^Tr^ojrnoj 

^T iH <N m <N ON 00 

t/>to- 



o ro vD in 00 00 

0> r^ VD T ^P «— 4 

r^ o <N m CO (N 

(N vo O rH rH m 





•^ <f 




C Q 




h-t M 




Eh CC 




3S 




z t- 


in 


C 




o - 


t: 


Q. t- 


»_t 


•-J 


CQ 




< 


E-i 


E- > 




« 


X 


b. U 




O r; 


c 


M 


2 


W < 


U 


OO 


c 


M 


O' 


t-fc 


< 


t/-. c 




H* 




c >< 




- E- 




Eh M 




U O 




§ 




S 








o 




H 








o 




u 




z 



otNi-HCNrsi^TfNin^o'^T'^inoococo.-H'-Hin 
r^ r- 00 

o^oo^Dln^o^oovDmcNo^^nom i voo 
oooofOinr*-<T»r^r^r^crvi-ir*tn f-tin 

^ in -kO 



^fia^«N0000r^^»Hr»VDOr»■O^* 

rMv£)0O0Ovo<— tocooor-voro^r^ 



I in ^ 

rn r» 
in in 



• mlnvc^^r*OP^^Dlno^r^oor*^Du^o^o 
(rsiminmr»or^a^ccco%c<— (CM .-4y:> 

.— « <-H i-H r-4<Nrs| CNO 






CTiLO^ccovi-o ^'^r^^ccMin*-4^rinixCin 
.-H eNrncMcoooo^r^r-Hooo<N coj 






r^co'X)'— ir^vDOJoor^coofN'Xir) i mc^ 

U3 .— If-Hi— (.— t»-i fMCMrH OOCO 



^TOjrn^^r^Tro(T»oO'-HfNicor-c i "^rsi 
or^fN.— lo-i o^Oicon*x)»— t^Dr^>i)rM moo 



(sjr^ovcooi ioo(Nr^int<— lyjt 






O T vo 


in 00 OO 


in VO o^ 


^ rH ^ 


T r^ in 


r^ m (N 






m iH ^ 


(N rH (N 


«><n- 


to- to- 


fH o in 


<N r» T 


vo r« vo 


in vo •<r 


vo ro m 


n vo T 


« « ■. 


^ ■. 


f~\ -^ \r\ 


rH <N 


<A to- 


to- <f> 


-H r- r- 


in vo CO 


1-1 CO 00 


O ^ rH 


(N CTV <T\ 


m <ri r~ 



o in vc 


rsi 


ov in 


vc in (N 


m 


a^ "^ 


^ m r~ 


r^ 


m i-H 


<k Ik ■> 




h Ik 


rg y^j r^ 




r«j m 


<rt- VI- 




i/y v> 


o ** ro 


c r^ in 


r- m <N 


\c 


VD ON 


in CO ^r 


1— t 


r-l 1— 1 


fc «k ■> 




•k (k 


^ a> o 




<N ^ 


1— i 






vxo- 




V> V> 


CO fNl 00 


f-\ 


<r» o4 


m ro o 


00 


O 00 


in (N c 


00 


in in 


« ^ Ik 




^ ^ 


rg »x; r^ 




oj m 


VX/j- 




V> </)- 


cc m TT 


•c 


o rj 


c a- ■^ 


o 


{N f— 1 


OO r- rg 


CO 


m o 


h h « 




k, V 


m <H n 


rN 


t-\ (N 


v> w 




v> v> 


^ O v£j 


(N 


<H VO 


tn o T 


m 


^ O 


rsi rM ■^ 


f-H 


(T^ rH 


h « 




•k « 


^r in 




f-\ n 


v> ■to- 




w to- 



tn 




QJ 


tfl 


■H 


1 — 1 


.— 1 


m 


•H 


3 


ET!| 


10 


-H 


Cu 


> 




-H 


MH 


■o 





c 




t-H 


a\ 




vo 


i; 


tn 


OJ 


r~^ 


-p 




m 


C 




-H 


a) 




^j 


<D 


c 


E 


^ 







o 


•n 


c 




M 


nl 



I o^ o^ 



CN C^ 0^ O^ C^ 0^ O^ O^ C^ C> 
<7\ o^ CT* c^ c^ o <j^ o^ 0^ c^ 



irsirn-^invor^oocTit-HTr^Tcri u 

.— I .-< OJ -"T u 

-wto-vn/vvx/vvx/vwto-t/vto- £ 
OOOOOOOOOOOOM 

i4J4J4-»-U-P4J4J+J4J4-)-P4J O 

lOO ooooooooooo 
•ooooooooooooo 
>oo ooc-'ooocr-oooo 

lfsJfnrrtnvo^^a^c^O(Nlnlno 
.— t .— ( rH oj in 

■</)-ty></VV>CO-</></>t/></>V></>CO-</> 







18 




n) 








f-t 




3 








O 




■a 








^ 




•H 








c 


QJ 


> 0) 








3 


E 


■H S 




Q) 






(1) 


-a 





e 




-a 


O G 


C 


E 





Q) 


c ui 


C 


-H c 





o 


e 


H] rH 


•H 


■H 





c 





1) 


n 


t; 


c 


r^ 


o 


m 3 


C-H 


c 


-H 




c 


0) Ti 


nj 


4J ra 




c 


■r( 


■H -H 


•H C 


m H 


c 


nl 




rH > 


•U rO 


r-A 'O 


fl 


H 


c 


-H -rH 


(U QJ 


OJ o 


01 


'O 


rd 


E -0 


r-* ^ 


i< 3 


;r 


o 


OJ 


nj c 




c 








Cu-H 




L> 





81 



F 



r 



APPENDIX TABLE 6 

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BLACK POPULATION: 1970 
(CENSUS TRACTS WITH 40 OR MORE BLACK POPULATION) 
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 



All Families 

Less than $1,000 

$ 1,000 to $1,999 

$ 2,000 to $2,999 

$ 3,000 to $3,999 

$ 4,000 to $4,999 

$ 5,000 to $5,999 

$ 6,000 to $6,999 

$ 7,000 to $7,999 

$ 8,000 to $8,999 

$ 9,0G0 to $9,999 

$10,000 or more 

Median Income: Families 

Families and unrelated 
individuals 



(2) 


- (6) 




(7) 




Ci 


ty 


574 




682 


1, 


047 


2 


,480 


42 




63 




76 




280 


118 




75 




92 




286 


81 




75 




135 




315 


61 




52 




122 




256 


74 




87 




123 




314 


55 




74 




86 




228 


46 




52 




63 




178 


13 




76 




67 




159 


18 




46 




54 




128 


5 




24 




68 




104 


61 




58 




161 




303 


$3,754 


$4, 


874 


$4, 


801 


$4 


,554 



$2,465 $4,068 $4,164 $3,439 



Source: 33 



82 



— ro 



■^ in 



—' 00 



in 



— in 



— ' f~ 



0) 




rp 




(0 




4J 




c 




<u 


d) 





fc 


u 


« 


a) 


tj 


o< 


c 




M 


Ul 




m 


>■ 




OJ 


4J 




c 


0) 


OJ 


i; 


c: 


O 




U 


Ul 


C 


Ul 


t-( 







u 


u-< 


O 






4-J Ul 


O 


C JJ 


O 


CJ -H 


O 


u c 


- 


a 


in 


T3 


t/> 


0) T3 




•w O 


c 


M-l -H 


m 


•H D, 


x^ 


O 3 


u 


O O 




Q, O 


U) 


to O 


Ul 



4J 










C 










o 






<u 




tJ 






u 




1-1 


4J 


4J 


o 




0) 


C 


c 


b 




a 


CJ 


OJ 








o 





^ 




o 


M 


u 





Tl 


rs] 


ai 


o 




OJ 




c 


a, 


•M 


■p 





(U 






u 




■U 







c 


1= 




(I) 









1-1 




1-1 





■n 


0) 




<u 


0. 


■p 


4J 




c 


3 


^ 


Q) 


CI, 


n 


o 


h 




M 


o 





0) 


o 



83 



APPENDIX TABLE 8 

FINANCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSING UNITS 
WITH BLACK HEi\D OF HOUSEHOLD: 1970 
(CENSUS TRACTS WITH 400 OR MORE BLACK POPULATION) 
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 



Census Tract 
Gross Rent as Percentage of Income 
By Income 



Less than $10,000 
25 percent or more 
35 percent or more 
Not computed 
Median 

Source: 33 



(2) 


(6) 




(7) 


631 


359 




557 


382 


158 




253 


286 


80 




153 


8 


19 




32 


32.3 


23. 


9 


24.4 



84 



n 



APPENDIX B 



85 



•H 
C 

o 

o 

u 

c 

E 



c 

O 



u 

o 

B 
2 



V.C ^' m CX3 L' L'~> U^ 



'C' r^ ^ ^ 



cnr-ccc i-oo i Lf)'<g'r-iro 



vi r- cNj u: CN c; CO I— i i vl- '^' "v c: 

CN] I-l I— I 



IT) 



o o o 

CTi VC O O O 

r-- ro iH c r^ vt; 



o 



in r~- 



■y>v>-c/> 



W 
CQ 

<: 

EH 

X 
H 

Q 

W 



o 
u 

H " 

cn 

H 
H 

EH 

U 



H 



W 
(-:] 

H 

> 
CO 

H 

o 
c 

Eh 
H 



o u 



u 

Sh 

Eh 

W 

:3 
m 
C 
<u 
u 

























e 




























































































^ 






























>H 




























cn 


(U 




























tT> t^ C 


a 




























C C-r^ 






























■H -H ^ 


w 


























&^£ J5 g 


C 


























c 


e e p 


O 


























■H 


P P rH 


tn 


























X5 


rH rH CL, 


u 


























e 


D. a 


a 


w 
























p 


rH 


04 


4-) 
























rH 


,-^ t-{ r-i 




•H 
























CUrH rH rd 


(U 


c 


























fO (0 


u 


p 
























rH 


^ 





























iH 


^ ^ 


e 


tn -rs 
























tC 




a 


Sh tn 


4J 0) 

•H -H 4-1 
























5h 


Q) O B 


-P 


C D., C 



























e e 


•H 


P P CJ 


























tn 


rH C \ U Sh 


4-1 






















0) 


tn tn 


o p 


t-0 u 


c 














'd 








s 


tj^ 


• \ 


C 4-) 


G) 














c 











tn cn c 


rH tn 


1 u 


Sh 










n 


T! 


D 








tn 


C C -H 


g 


tn Sh fd 








•-> 


T3 


o 
















•H -H ^ 


-c o 


5h a 5h 


tn 






en a 


0) 


-H 


-H 


U 








Cr^^ X U 


-P 


Q) C 4-> 


tn 






+J -H 


■H 


a a 










C 


U U rd 


•H ^ 


CU 5 c 









•H a. 


CI. 


P 


a 


U 








•H 


ai a •-{ 


5 





u 






C P 


13 


o 


o 


(d 








^ 


H rH 


MH 


MH O 


tn 




en 


3 O 


U 


u 


u 


a 








U 


-d 


tn 


HH 




00 


u 


O 


U 








>i 








ra 


tn 'd CD 


■p 


>i >i 


m 


•H 


tP 


o 


1 


1 




>i 






rH 


4-1 O -H 


-H Jh 


U rH 


rH 




-P 


C 1 


1 


!-i 


u 


■p 


rH 


>i cn 




-H -H a 


C (D 


Q a i' 


^ 


•. 


W 


•H ^ 


u 








c 


■H 


1 — i 


0) 


tn 


c a. P 


p -^ 


4-"^ P 4-1 


4-1 


ro 


•H 


tn a 


Q) 


-p 


-p 


03 


^ 


•H 


1^ 


-P 


P P U 


6 


e '-H c 


c 


ro 


U 


c 


C 


G 


G 


U 


d 


g 





-H 


U O 


14H P 


p (d 







o 


5 


5 


0) 


GJ 


ra 


1+-) 


d 


/•-« 


G 


t:; o 


c 


c > g 


g 




-p 


J= 





u 


U 


> 




U-4 




p 


1 








• • 


u 












o 




Q) 




•H 1 !h 


!h C 


c c c 


c 


0) 


fa 


rH a 


^ 


a 


^ 


I— 1 


t— 1 


•H 


1 — i 


rH 


a.u 


o fd 


fd rd fd 


fd 


u 


u 


ra -P 


u 


4-) 


U 


rd 


C^-P 


•H 


(T3 


P O 4J 


X! -H 


•H -H -H 


•H 


S-i 


(T3 


4-) -H 


(T3 


•rH 


r3 


+J 


C rH 


e^ 


-p 


O C G 


G 'd T2 -a 'TJ 


-d 


p 


x: 


C -C 


rH 


^ f~\ 


tH 





■H 


a 


C 





u :s a 


P o 


(u (L) a 


(U 





u 


^ ^ 


a^ 


l-^ 


J 


2-1 


CO 


•"^ 


H 


[H 


o o « 


>^ <-l 


s s :^ 


^ 


w 





+> 




• 


























c 






























o 


iH 


■^ 


r^ 


M 


o 


'vT 


"x; 


00 


r-- 


in 


CN 


ro 






u 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 






^ 


O 00 


cn 


o 


[^ 


c 


in 


rr 


a^ 


r- 


<-i 


vi; 


00 






0) 


o 


iH 


•"S" 


(N 


rH 


in 


•^ 














w 


0* 


•-i 


























+J 






























-H 






























c 






























D 






























IW 




























o o c 





u 


CN r-- 


vc 


<ys 


CO 


^T 


r~- 


in 


CO 


r- 


vc- 


i-H 


rH 

• 

rH -^ 


iH O O C 


}-l 


CM O VD CN 


0) 


<u 


m cr, 


CN 


00 


in 


•^ 


r* 


CO 


m 


00 


m 


in 


o 


o r^ o 


^ 


f 


•^ iH 


ro 


O^ 


Vi) 


CN 


CO 


o 


CN 


i-i 




rH 


CN 


r- iH 


E 


«. 










- 


- 












^ 


P 


p 


<N 










iH 


fH 












C7^ 


S 


s 


























i/y-axn- 





en < 






t^ C 






cr. H 






rH Pi 






O 






- hJ 




o 

iH 


CO Ph 

U 






M - 


<N 


H 


Eh P 




^ 


W i-q 


+J 


a 


H h:] 





< 


Cc^ M 


ra 


Eh 


w > 


Sh 




Eh CO 


ir* 


X 


u n 




H 


^ s 


w 


Q 


K M 


p 


S 


< < 


w 


W 


D-i U 


c 


0^ 


O 


a 


Cm 


Ph 


u 


< 


OUSING 
CITY 





















g 




































































u 






















u 




















&1 


Q) 




















Cr« en C 


a 




















C C -H 






















-H -H X! 


Cfl 


















Cn^ jT, 6 


C 


















C 


g g p 





















•H 


p p .-1 


CO 


















^ 


rH rH C^ 


>H 


















e 


a a 


QJ 


CO 
















p 


rH 


a 


4J 
















•-\ 


rH rH rH 




•H 
















D.'H .-. fd 





C 


















fd fd 


Sh 


P 
















rH 


u 





















rH 


Sh Sh 


g 


CO 'O 
















fd 




a 


)H CO 


•P Q) 
-H -H -P 
















5h 


O E 


4J 


c o. c 



















g g c 


•H 


:i :2 <D 


















CO 


rH C \ SH P 
















0) 


m c/o 


P 


CO U C 
















13 g 


cr. 


•\ 


C -P c 
















n 


en tJi C 


>-{ CO 


1 U V4 












Xi 


■Tj 


P CO 


d c: -H 


E 


CO >H fd 








T! 


■o 


o 


o 


c 


•H -H ^ 


^ 


sh a ^ to 






w 


0) 


a 


•H 


•H 


i-i cn^ ^ U 


-P 


C -P CO 






+J 


-H 


•H 


a, 


►-i-i 


C 


u u fd 


•H H 


a 5 c c 






•H 


a a P 


P 


U -H 


fd (d rH 


5 


M 






c 


p 


P 


u 


o 


fd ^ 


rH rH 


MH 


MH D^ 




Ul 


p 


u 


U 


o 


o 


<u u 


n-i 


CO 


HH 


00 


u 




u 


u 








>i (d 


CO TU 3 


4-J 


>i > 


m 


•H 


Cr> 





o 


1 


1 


>, rH 


-P O -H 


•H U 


U rH r-1 




4-> 


C 


1 


1 


u 


u 


4-) rH >, CO 


■H -H a, 


C C) 


x; ^ 




CO 


•H 


>H 


u 





Q) 


C -H rH QJ Cfl 


c ex P 


p ja 


X! P +J P 


00 


•H 


CI 


o 


Q) 


4-) 


4-> 


rd E; -H g +J 


P P u 


E 


E ^ c c 


ro 


M 


p 


c 


c 


c 


c 


u fd g -H 


o u 


UH P 


p fd c 




<U 


O 


5 


5 


<D 


Gj 


fd u-i fd x; c 


"C o o 


c 


C > E E 




-P 


^ 





o 


u 


!h 


> UH P 


<D 1 






•• 


O 












o cu 


■H 1 ^H 


u c 


c: c c c 


CD 


fd 


rH 


a 


^ 


G 


^ 


rH rH -H rH rH 


CI4 5h O 


(1) fd 


fd fd fd fd 





u 


f3 


+j 


o 


-P 


U 


ni en -P -H td 


P -P 


X! -H 


•H -H -H -H 


P 


fd 


-P 


•H 


fd 


•H 


m 


+J C rH Xi 4J 


oca 


E ^ 


-r; 'O 'TJ '"0 


P 


jr 


C 


^ 


rH 


^ 


<—i 


-H POO 


u :§ 


P (U 


CL) CD cu G 





u 


E-H 




U3 


2 


CQ 


Eh CO 3: n: ch 


ci; 


3 s 


S S S 2 


CO 



r 



r 



r 





-p 




c 




Q) 




U 




>^ 




(D 


w 


P4 


+J 




•H 




c 




D 




M-l 









}^ 


^ 


O 


(U 


^' 


-Q 


e 


£ 


p 


P 


s 


S 



c^o^l— ioc'>3<Lnr»co(Noir)m •"^ 
ocr>rHc^iHr^r^<x;LniHrHoc ro 



r--ocN!Ln^rou3CorocriinrMro 
vDroroisC^oouDin^cNCNi— ii— I 

«=? (N a-i iH »>C V£j rH 



CN 



o o o 
vD m o o o 



00 



(N 



C O^ C\I 

c cTi n 





n < 






r^ Q 






0\ H 






iH Di 






o 






-h^ 




•-i 


W Ph 




r-\ 


U 






H •< 


m 


K 


EH K 




^^ 


Ui y^ 


-M 


CQ 


M K^ 


u 


<: 


ce; H 


fO 


£-1 


w > 


5^ 




Eh C/j 


Eh 




U U 




H 


< s 


w 


Q 


K H 


P 


^ 


< < 


CO 


W 


K o 


C 


0^ 


u 


a 


04 


Cm 


u 


< 


OUSING 
CITY 





















e 










































































u 
























u 






















Cn 


Q) 






















CTi Cn C 


a 






















C C -H 
























•H -H ^ 


w 




















tP-G X} E 


c 




















c 


e e p 























■H 


PPM 


w 




















^ 


rH rH Dj 


p 




















e 


a a 


0) 


U) 


















p 


nH 


a 


■p 


















rH 


rH iH rH 




•H 


















Oi-H rH fd 


a 


c 




















fd fd 


p 


p 


















iH 


u 























iH 


p p 


E 


en Ti 


















m 




0) 


p w 


-P 0) 
•H -H -P 


















u 


e 


-P 


c a c 





















e E 


•H 


P P 0) 




















w 


rH C\ P 


-p 
















<D 


w w 


P 


en u 


c 














'd 


e 


tj« 


• \ 


c -P 


(U 














c 





CT" tJ- C 


rH U) 


1 u 


p 










^ 


^ 


p 


w 


C C -H 


E 


w p fd 










^ t:; a 


c 







•H -H X 


^ 


P 0) P 


en 






w 


a 


0) -H 


•H 


u 


ij^-i^ ri4 U 


-P 


CU C -P 


en 






•p 


•H 


•H a 


Q, 




c 


u fd 


-H !-i 


a [5 c; 









•H 


a a P 


p 


p 


-H 


fd fd >-( 


:s 





p 






c 


p 


P u 


u 


fd 


ri^ 


rH rH 


M-( 


IH U 


CT^ 




m 


p 


u 


u 


u 





u 


t3 


(/•] 


^ 




CO 


u 




u 


U 





>i 


ro 


en T3 


•p 


>i >i 


en 


•H 


tJ^ 





1 


1 


>i 


rH 


+J 0) -H 


•H S-i 


P i-H 


-H 




4J 


c 


1 


1 u 


u 


-P M >, (/5 




•H -H Or 


C 0) 


CD (D ^ 


x: 




\S\ 


•H 


u 


u o 





C -H ^ Q) 


w 


C D^ P 


P ^ X! P -P 


-p 


ro 


•H 


0} 


o 


CD -P 


-p 


fl3 g ■■H g 


-p 


P P u 


s 


S rH C 


c 


ro 


M 


D 


c 


c: c 


c 


fi5 e 


•H 


u 


IH P 


P fd 







0) 





5 


5 o 


a 


d 'H fT3 ;c; 


r; 


n3 


c c 


C > E 


£ 




-P 


jC 





P 


p 


> iH 


P 


a 1 








• • 


u 










0) 




•H 1 ^ 


P c 


C C G 


C 


CD 


ri3 


rH 


o 


a:: cu 


'^ 


rH 1— 1 -H rH 


rH 


a p a 


fd 


fd fd fd 


fd 


U 


U 


(T3 


-p 


U -P 


u 


(0 cn+J -H 


fd 


p a -p 


•^ ""• 


•H -H -H 


•H 


P 


fTj 


-P 


■H 


rrj -H 


03 


P C -H X! 


-p 


u c c 


S ''0 


'0 t:i ^d Tj 


P 


x: 





x: 


■H x: 


rH 


-H P 





u :s 


P 0) 


(U 0) 0) 


0) 





u 


Eh 


:2 


2:1 :2 


P 


Eh -Ji s rz: 


Eh 


2i 




s s rs; 


•^ 


Oi 



CX) 

00 





+j 




c 




0) 




o 




^1 




<D 


w 


P^ 


+J 




-H 




C 




D 




^-^ 




O 




}~i 


^1 


<D 


<D 


^ 


Xi 


e 


e 


D 


p 


z 


s 



a^CNCOvc^^o^crlC^!vc•^f^Jm oo 

• ••*•••••••• • 

iH 



r^corooo^ronorHa-r^ro'^ 
cr. C' ro in iH m in 
in ro ro in 









o 


o 


o 




r^ 


v£; 


o 


o 


o 


vc 


m 


en 


o 


c 


^ 


r^ 






c 


m 


r^ 








m 


rH 


r-i 








*«, 












in 




V 








iH 












v>-c/>v> 





ro < 






r^ Q 






cr> M 






rH « 






O 






-^q 




CN 


en tn 




rH 


u 






H ^ 


•^ 


H 


Eh W 




►-1 


cn f-q 


4J 


m 


H ^ 


O 


< 


Oil H 


ttJ 


Eh 


W > 


S-< 




Eh W 


Eh 


x: 


u rj 




H 


gg 


M 


Q 


P 


z 


!< < 


cn 


w 


K U 


C 


a^ 


O 


C) 


0^ 


En 


u 


< 


HOUSING 
CITY 





















s 

















































o 
























M 
























^ 






















en 


<D 






















Cn Cn c 


a 






















C C -H 
























•H -H X^ 


w 






















tPi:! X, E 


c 






















c 6 e p 

























•H P P rH 


w 






















x; i-H >— ' Qj 


>H 






















g a c< 





en 




















P rH 


CI. 


4-) 




















iH iH M .H 




•H 




















QjrH iH fd 


0) 


c: 




















fd m 


u 


p 




















■H >-l 

























-H 5-4 S-i 


E 


w "^ 




















fd o 




4J O 




















Q) 


M W 


•H -H 4J 




















U O Q) B 


-P 


c a, c 




















E g 


•H 


P P 0) 




















O W 


■H C \ O M 


p 


















0) en w 


o p 


CTi U 


c 














^ 




e cp 


• \ 


C 4J 
















c 




tr> en C 


iH W 


1 u 


5-, 










Tj 


'!>■ 


p 




W C C -H 


E 


w M (d 








TJ 13 


(U 


O 







-H -H ^ 


x; 


'H O 5-1 


W 






W <U 


o 


•H 


-H 


^4 




Cn;:^ ^ u 


-P 


O C 4J 


l-: 






4-1 -H 


•H 










C u u fd 


•H 5-1 


a 5 c 


c 






•H D, 


a 


p 


P 


u 




-H fd fd >H 


5 


C 


5^ 






C P 


p 


u 


u 


fC 




^ -H rH 


IH 


"4-1 U 


tri 




tn 


P U 


u 


u 


o 


a 




U T3 


w 


M-4 




00 


o 


o 


u 








>i 




rd W 'X^ (U 


-p 


>, >, 


m 


•H 


en 





1 


1 




>i 


rH 4-1 CJ -H 


•H S-i 


U rH 


t— i 




-P 


C 1 


1 


u 


u 


4-) 


-H >, W 


■H -H Qj 


C 


o a x: 


^ 


•> 


W 


■H S^ 


y* 


o 


o 


c 


•H <H (U 


W C Q^ P 


p XJ 


x: P 4-J 


-u) 


ro 


•H 


M (U 


QJ 


4-> 


4J 


(d 


S -H g 


4J P P U 


E 


E rH C 


C 


m 


M 


P c 


C 


c 


r-' 


u 


fd e 


•H U O 


U-l p 


P rd 


c 




Q) 


5 


^ 





5 


fd 


u-^ fd £ 


Ca D 


c 


C > E 


= 




+J 


SZ 





u 


u 


> 


M-4 


p a 1 








• • 


O 












g; q) 


•H 1 <H 


^ c 


c c c 


c 


QJ 


Id 


-H O 


'/ 


o 


^ 


iH 


M -H rH 


-H a iH a 


0) fd 


fd fd fd 


— 


U 


u 


fd 4-> 


u 


4-1 


o 


fd 


Cr> 4-1 -H 


fd p a 4-> 


J3 -H 


•H -H -H 


•r- 


U 


rd 


+J -H 


rd 


•H 


d 


4-> 


c -H x: 


-P u c c 


E ^ 


t:: ^c; '-a 


r^ 


P 


x; 


o ^ 


M 


r^ 


rH 





•H P 


o S; 01 


P o 


O Q Q) 


c 





u 


&H ^ 


CQ 


2 


'y^ 


^ 


1-0 S S 


Eh O O « 


■■^ •c 


S r2 s 


3^ 


OQ 



CD 





■p 




c 




0) 




u 




5-< 




OJ 


en 


Oj 


-P 




-H 




C 




D 




M-l 




O 




S-l 


U 


(U 


o 


^ 


X) 


e 


e 


D 


p 


s 


s 



o IT) n r~ CN 

iH 



c LO rj CO rH CO vj:^ LD r^ LD r: o, 

v^CCi-iCOjCNCOCNVOCNCNJ 

c^ c r- iH n LD 



0-) 



o 
en 



o o o 

iH ro o c c 

CC' Ln CM C rH vc 

IT) O CO O 

H 





m <: 






r- C 






<T> H 






.H cc; 






o 






- k^ 




m 


w fo 




rH 


u 






H V 


LD 


p 


Eh W 




h^ 


C/3 ►-H 


■P 


CQ 


H H^ 


U 


<: 


Di M 


fO 


Eh 


w > 


S-J 




Eh W 


&H 


r'-i 


u ;^j 




M 


< s 


w 


Q 


p:^ M 


p 


S 


<c < 


w 


W 


X u 


c 


Oi 


u 


CJ 


cu 


fa 


u 


< 


HOUSING 
CITY 























B 




























































































u 






























u 




























CP 


0) 


























D^ CP 


q 


a, 


























C C 


•H 




























•H -H 


i:j 


w 
























crx ^ 


c 


c 
























c 


e g 


p 



























•H 


p p 


rH 


w 
























£ 


rH rH 


a 


^ 
























6 


a a 




G) 




w 




















P 




rH 


CU 




4-1 




















rH 


rH rH 


rH 






-H 




















CLiH rH 


d 


G 




C 






















d d 




Sh 




P 




















iH 




S-l 



























fH 


U U 





g 


W T3 




















d 





a 


U CO 


4J 
•H 


0) 
•H 


4J 


















u 


0) GJ 


g 


4J 


G 


D. 


c 


















<~ 


g g 





•H 


P 


P 


o 























U) 


rH G \ 


U 


^ 


4-1 
















cu 


w w 




o p 


en 


O 




c 












Td 




E 




Di 


• \ 


c 





4-1 


O 












a 







CT" en 


C 


rH W 





1 





5-4 








T3 




p 




w 


c c 


•H 


g 


en 


u 


d 






^ 


i:^ 


a; 


o 









•H -H 


^ 


^ 


u 


<D 


Sh 


W 




W (J 


cy 


•H 


•H 


Sh 




iTi^ ^ 


u 


-P 


o 


c 


4-1 


cn 




4-> -H 


•H 


a cu 






C 


u u 


d 


-H !h 


a. 5 


c 







•H a 


o^ 


p 


D 


S^ 




•H 


d d 


rH 


5 







c 


5-1 




c :3 


D 


u 


U 


d 




^ 


rH .H 




IH 


U-l 




u 


tn 




:3 


U 


u 





o 




U 




^ 


W 





'-M 






CO 


u 


u 








>1 




d 


W '0 


o 


4J 







>1 >1 


n 


tji 





1 


1 


>1 




rH 


4-) a 


•H 


•H U 


M 




iH 


rH 




C 1 


1 


u 


u 


-U rH >, W 




•H -H 


^ 


c a 





o 


r-* 


r-* 


«. 


•H ^^ 


u 


o 


o 


C -H rH 


(1) 


V5 


C Ci. 


P 


p ^ 


X 


p 


4-1 


■P 


en 


u} a 


a 


■p 


■p 


fo e -H 


g 


+J 


p p 


u 


g 


,=: 


.H 


r^ 


c 


m 


a G 


c 


c 


c 


u d g 


c 


■H 


u 


y 


"H P 


p 


d 










5 


5 


o 


o 


d MH d 


1-^-. 


C 


n:? u 





c 


c 


> 


g 


g 




^ 





!^ 


!^ 


> ^H 




P 


o 


1 












• • 










o 


Q) 




■H 1 


!-l 


u c 


(-• 


c 


c 


G 


0) 


rH O 


Ai 


O 


■ /< 


M fH -H 


rH 


rH 


a Vj 


a 


o d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


u 


fd -u 





+J 


u 


d cji 4-1 


•H 


d 


P O 


4-1 


X; -H 


•H 


•H 


•H 


-H 


u 


+J -H 


r? 


•H 


d 


-PCM 


JIJ 


4-1 


U C 


c 


g ^ 


'0 


'^ 


^ 


n:j 


p 


^ 


nH 


£ 


tH 


-H P 








U 5 


a 


P o 


o 


a 


o 


0) 





=H :i: 


a 


!2 


;q 


tH OO S 


2 


£h 


O O 


r^ 


S S 


-^ 


»c7i 


2 


«T-r 


w 



o 





+j 




c 




<D 









U 




<V 


w 


CU 


+J 




-H 




C 




t — . 




'-' 




M-l 




C 




U 


5-1 


OJ 


a 


£ 


X! 


e 


e 


p 


13 


s 


s 



oo'^oniDiHCNi^oinr-oo r- 

Oi— irOrHCNiH'XJCNJ rHiH iH 

iH 



ait^r^r^nroLnroiH 
roi-H'^iHroiHO^ro 





c c c 




VD iH C C C 


o r- •^ ro 


CO ■^ cn o -^ a, 


r~ m r-» ^D 


rH c in vc 


rH l-i 


CM ■<:r 




CD 




VX/XTr 





ro < 






r- Q 






cr, H 






iH ce; 






C 






-^^ 




rr 


W fa 




iH 


u 






H •» 


V£ 


« 


E-t K 




^^ 


en 1-^ 


4J 


m 


H a 


U 


< 


^ H 


tU 


Eh 


w > 


M 




Eh 01 


Eh 




U K 




H 


<C S 


W 


Q 


K H 


D 


3 


< < 


w 


W 


K u 


c 


(^4 


u 


(U 


0^ 


fa 


u 


< 


[OUSING 
CITY 



























G 




































o 




































o 




































}H 




































U 


































tp 


0) 
































CP 


tP c 


&. 
































C 


C -H 


































•H 


■H ^ 


CO 
































Cn^ X^ g 


c 
































c e 


e p 


o 
































•H P 


P •-! 


CO 
































^ rH 


,H a 


u 
































g a a 


CD 






CO 


























p 


rH 


a 






4J 


























rH ,-{ 


rH rH 








•H 


























a-H 


l-i fd 


<u 






c 


























CU 


fd 


u 






p 


























rH 


5h 


o 
































rH U 


^ 


g 




en 


^ 


























fd 





5h 


to 


4-1 
•H 



•H 


4-1 
























!h O 


c s 





4J 


C 


* — I 


c 
























e 


g 




•H 


P 


p 


a 



























to 


r-i 


C \ 


o 


Sh 


4-) 






















CU W 


w 


o 


P 


to 


u 




c 
















^ 






s 


C71 


• 


\ 


c 





4J 


G 
















r^ 






t7i 


CJi c 


rH 


CO 


c 


1 


u 


Sh 












'C 


'Tj 


:=! 






U) C 


C -H 




g 


to 


u 


fd 










^ t3 


o 


O 









■H 


•H ^ 


£ 





u 


o 


u 


CO 






w 


<U 


0) 


-H 


•H 


Jh 






IT"^ 


^ o 


4-1 





o 


c 


4J 


to 






-P 


-H 


•H 


a 










C U 


rd 


•H 


u 


04 5 


C 









•H 


o. 04 :3 


P 


S-) 






•H fd 


.-d rH 


^ 












S-l 






C 


p 


D 


o 


O 


fd 






^ rH 


rH 




IH 


MH 




u 


xy- 




w 


D 


u 


U 


u 


U 


a 






u 


-a 


to 








U-l 






CO 










U 





o 


>i 






rd W 


^ GJ 


4-1 









>l >> 


ro 


•H 


tJ^ 








1 


1 




>i 




rH 4-) 


a -H 


-H 


u 


5^ 




rH 


r-[ 




-p 


C 


1 


1 


u 


u 


4J 


1— : 


>l W 


•H 


•H a, 


C 


CJ 


(D 


a 


/— * 


^ 


^ 


CO 


-H 


u 


u 


o 


o 


c 


•H 


-H O 


W C 


d. p 


P X5 


o 


p 


4-1 


4-1 


n 


•H 


W 


<D 


GJ 


4-1 


4J 


fd 


cr; 


•H e 


4J a 


P u 




g 


g 


rH 


C 


C 


n 


U 


P 


C 


C 


c 


c 


u 


» J 


S 


■H 


o 


M-l 


p 


P 


rd 





g 




a 





^ 


:s 


0) 


0) 


fd 


U-l 


d ^ 


C ^ 


U 


o 


c 


C 


> 


g 


g 




4-) 


£ 








!h 


!h 


> 




IH 


P o 


! 














• • 


o 














O 


o 


•H 


1 U 


u 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


a 


fT! 


rH 


o 


^ 


o 


Al 


1 — i 


1 — t 


■H rH 


rH a !h GJ 


c 


fd 


fd 


rd 


fd 


fd 


u 


U 


fO 


■p 


u 


4-> 


u 


tT3 


cr> 


4J -H 


fd a 


4-1 


X! 


•H 


-H 


•H 


•H 


•H 


u 


a 


-u 


-H 


rd 


•H 


rij 


+-> 


f— 


-H -Q 


4-) u 


c a 


g 


'C 


nj 


^ 


X3 


'O 


P 


x: 





r; 


iH 


x: 


rH 





•H 


:3 


o 


^ o 


P 


o 


0) 





O 








o 


^ 


i-^ 


^q 




CQ 


Eh 


C/j 


<r~* ^ 


£h O 


O X 


>-^ 


s 




-^-4 


s 


s 


CO 



<Tv 





4J 




C 




<0 









u 




Q) 


to 


CU 


4-1 




•H 




c 




D 




<w 









U 


U 


o 


o 


Xi 


^ 


e 


e 


p 


D 


2 


s 



en (N (N '^T cr. r^ m 






00 VD iH in <N 

• • • • • 



•^rcci-iiHnHrOrH I 
r^cNjoiHincNrn^ 









o o o 








0-. "^ o o o 


<T. 


C 


ro r^ 


CTi »* ro C CO rji 


<N 


c- 


r- M 


O O -^ U3 


CN 


iH 


i-H 


o 

iH 

to- -00- CO- 





m <c 






r^ C 






<r. M 






•H P^ 






O 






-i-:i 




IT) 


CQ fo 




rH 


u 






M «. 


r^ 


W 


Eh W 




h^ 


W iJ 


4-1 


P 


M i-q 


U 


< 


Qn: H 


a 


Eh 


w > 


u 




Eh W 


Eh 


y. 


U K 




H 


S H 


w 


D 


p 




< < 


(/} 


W 


:u o 


c 


eu 


u 


(D 


CXi 


pL, 


U 


< 


!OUSING 
CITY 



















a 













































o 






















>^ 






















U 




















Cn 


<D 




















tn en C 


a 




















C C -H 






















•H -H XJ 


en 




















01^:2 ^ g 


C 




















C g g P 























•H P P rH 


to 




















Xi r-i r-i a, 


5-1 




















g a a 


CD 


w 


















P <H 


Ch 


4J 


















tH iH rH iH 




-H 


















arH rH rO 


Q) 


c 


















ra fd 


U 


p 


















■H ^ 























--1 5-( 54 C 


g 


en Tz! 


















(d c 




4-1 Q) 


















0) 


54 en 


•H -H 4J 


















Sh O <U g 


4-1 


c a c 


















g g 


•H 


:i "^ <D 


















en 


rH c:\ o n 


4J 
















c en en 


o p 


en u 


c: 














-c 


g tP 


• \ 


G 4-1 


(U 














c 


O tn D'' C 


rH en 


1 u 


5-1 










'C 13 


p 


en C C -H 


g 


en 5-( fd 








^ 


t: 


o 


o 





•H -H M 


x: 


5q 0) 5-1 


en 






W 0) 


o 


•H 


•H 


s-l 


Cn^ ^ U 


4J 


d) C 44 


en 






4-J -H 


•H 


a p. 




c u fd 


■H ^ 


a 5 c 









•H a 


a 


p 


P 


u 


•H fd fd iH 


^ 





M 






C P 


2 


u 


u 


n 


^ i-i '-i 


M-l 


44 O 


Cn 




CQ 


D U 


c 


u 


u 


o 


u -ri 


en 


M-) 




00 


U 


U 


u 








>i 


fd CO 13 <u 


4-) 


>i >i 


ro 


■H 


Cn 





I 


1 


>i 


rH 4-1 O -H 


•H 5-1 


54 rH 


rH 




-P 


C 1 


1 


5-1 


u 


4-1 ^ >, en 


•H -H S^j 


C o 


(D <D ^ 


x; 


^ 


M 


•H S-l 


u 


C 


Q) 


C -H rH C 


en C a P 


P ^ ^ P 4-) 


4-1 


m 


-H 


K a 


o 


4-) 


4J 


d £ -H g 


4J p p u 


g 


g -H G 


c 


m 


M 


P c 


c 


a 


G 


o d g 


•H U U 


U-( D 


P fd 







OJ 


5 


:5 


(D 


O 


fd u-i fd x: 


C ^ U 


c 


G > g 


e 




4-1 


£ 


c 


M 


^4 


> iH 


p a o 1 








• • 


O 










a o 


•H 1 ^ 


!^ C 


G C d 


C 


<u 


05 


.-H o 


^ 


o 


^ 


rH rH -H l-H 


rH D, S-l o 


CD fd 


fd fd fd 


fd 


u 


U 


03 4-> 


u 


4J 


u 


r3 Cn4-i -H 


fd P OJ 4-1 


JQ -H 


•H -H -H 


•H 


5-1 


m 


4-1 -H 


rs 


-H 


fl3 


4-1 C -H ^ 


4-1 u c: c: 


g ^a 


t3 13 'd t:! 


P 


xi 


C ^ 


i-H 


rl 


rH 


-H p O 


o U 5 o 


P o 


O 0) GJ 


(U 


O 


u 


£h ;3 


r-^ 


S: 


a 


cH CQ r:: ii: 


Eh O O Ci 


S ,"3 


s s s 


2 


CO 



CM 



CO 

-p 

•H 
C 
D 

O 

c 
g 



c 
o 
u 

S-l 
<D 
Oh 



ro VD o^ <N CD 



rH iH 



CCX3 I rsici^rovi) i co i o 

O 00 rH 00 

rH 





VD O 


1 i-i (N a. iH in 


u 


cr, u; 


UD iH -^ un "^ 


Q) 


CO .-H 


in .H CN vo 


^ 


^ 


«. « 


5 


rH 


rH r-i 


P 






S 







CN tH I iH 



00 

in 





o o o 


■> n 


o o o 


T CN 


c ■^ in 




c: in CO 




CM iH iH 




^ 




vo 




m 




</></></> 





m <C 






r- G 






C^ H 






.H Oi 






o 






-nq 




U3 


C/2 fc 




iH 


U 






H ^ 


00 


P4 


Eh P 




1-^ 


W ^ 


-P 


CQ 


H ^ 


u 


<C 


Di H 


(0 


Eh 


W > 


u 




Eh CO 


Eh 


X 


U K 




H 


!< S 


CO 


Q 


K M 


p 




< < 


w 


W 


K C 


c 


Oj 


u 


c 


0^ 


fc 


u 


< 


[OUSING 
CITY 

























s 






















































































u 




























u 


























Cn 


o 


























cn tn q 


a 


























C C -H 




























•H -H ^ 


to 


























C E g P 





























-H P P .H 


to 


























n rH rH C^ 


S-i 


























g Ci. c 


Q) 




CO 






















P -H 


a 




4J 






















rH iH rH H 






•H 






















C^rH rH (d 


0) 




C 






















fd fd 


^ 




P 






















rH M 





























rH ^ S-l 


g 


CO 


T3 






















fd 




4-) 


CD 

























U CO 


•H 


■H 4-i 






















U O Q) B 


4J 


c 


Ci, C 






















6 g 


•H 


p 


P C 






















w 


rH C \ 


O 5-1 4J 






















a cn to 


O P 


CO 


C 














X5 








g D^ 


• \ 


c 


-p a; 














C 








CJ> Cr. C 


rH to 





1 u 










^ 


t: 


P 








CO C C -H 


g 


to 


u (d 






T! T5 


o 


o 











•H -H >: 


x: 


u 


o ^ to 






cn o 


o 


•H 


-H 


u 








cn^ ^ u 


4J 


o 


C 4J to 






-P -H 


-H 














c: u fd 


■H U 


a, 15 c 






-H a 


a 


p 


P 


u 








•H fd fd rH 


5 




M 






C P 


p 


u 


u 


nj 








-i^ rH rH 


M-l 


44 


u cn 




en 


P u 


u 


u 


u 


O 








U Xi 


to 





4-1 


CO 


u 


o 


u 


o 





>i 








a u) "xn 


4J 




>, >i 


m 


-H 


cn 





1 


1 




>. 






.H 4J a -H 


-H V4 


!-i 


fH iH 




4-) 


C 1 


1 


M 


u 


4-> 


.H 


>i w 


•H -H a, 


c a 


0) 


a x: £ 


N. 


CO 


•H M 


u 


Q) 





r^ 


■H 


iH 





CO c o^ p 


p i2 


^ 


P 4-) 4-> 


m 


•i-i 


c-T a 


o 


4J 


J-i 


r3 


s 


■rj 


s 


4J P P U 


g 


g 


rH C C 


cn 


u 


c 


c 


c 


(-• 


U 


fd 


t-; 





■H U U 


44 P 


p 


fd 




o 


:? 


s 


c 





fd 


4-1 


fd 


^ 


C TJ O 


c 


c 


> g g 




4J 


^ 





M 


u 


> 




m 




p a 1 








• • 


u 












a 




0) 


■H { S-l 


^ c 


c 


c c c 


<D 


05 


iH o 


^ 


o 


M 


.H 


rH 


•H 


rH 


rH Q, Sh O 


(U fd 


fd 


fd fd fd 


U 


U 


fd 4-1 


u 


-M 


U 


fd 


Cn -P 


•H 


fd P O 4-1 


f.3 


•H 


•H -H -H 


M 


fC 


4-> -H 


fo 


•H 


r:! 


4J 


C 


rH 


J 


4J U C C 


^13 


'u ^3 tJ 


P 


X 


x: 


rH 


^ 


rH 





■H 


p 





U > GJ 


P Q) 


(U 


a o tu 





u 


B 3: 


p 


■^ 


a 


Ch 


W 


*^ 


■ '*H 


Eh O O Di 


3 S 


.-> 


s^ 2* "^^ 


CO 






i . 



M-l 

o 

u 

(D 

e 



■4J 

0) 

u 

(U 






iH <X) ro o c 



(N C iH C. 



C-^ I V0OCX3OC I nCNOiH 

o in ro r~» n 



CN "sf I Ci 'C vc c, m I c^j LO CN ro 



(N CM 



CM 



O 
CX) 



CO vx; r- 

I— i LO VC 



r^ •^ 



CN 



o o o 

r--- ro c o c 



CO LO CN C C. LO 



o 



ai CM 



in 

CN 

■(/></> -co- 



rn < 





r- Q 






(Ti H 






rH OJ 






o 






- h^ 




r- 


CO Ua 




iH 


u 


o 




H V 


rH 


K 


B H 




►J 


CO \A 


+J 


« 


H H^ 





< 


0^ H 


(d 


Eh 


w > 


^ 




Eh CO 


Eh 


X 


U ',^ 




H 


< S 


W 


D 


K H 


3 


S 


2 o 


w 


W 


C 


a. 


u 


(U 


&i 


fa 


u 


< 


HOUSING 
CITY 



















g 













































o 






















u 






















u 




















Cn 


Q) 




















Cn tTi C 


Da 




















C C-H 






















•H -H ^ 


W 


















tp 


O ^ £ 


C 


















c 


e e p 





















■H 


P P iH 


w 


















£ 


-H rH. a, 


u 


















e 


a a 


(U 


M 
















P 


rH 


a 


4J 
















1 — i 


rH rH rH 




•H 
















CUrH rH 03 


CD 


C 


















tC (d 


5h 


P 
















1-1 


Sh 





















iH 


^ Jh 


E 


tn TD 
















ra 


c 

0) 


U iSi 


-p a 

-H -H 4-) 
















^ 


<U 0) 6 


C +J 


c a c 



















£ E 


■H 


P P CD 


















w 


rH C \ U 5H 


-p 














<D 


w cn 


O P 


cn U 


c 










-d 




e 


cn 


• \ 


C -P 


a 










c 




c 


in D^ C 


•-^ w 


1 u 


Sh 






HD 


^ 


p 




m 


C C -H 


E 


cn Sh 03 








T! TZ! CD 


o 









■H -H a; 


£ O 


Sh O ^ 


cn 






W 0) 0) -H 


-H 


S-l 




CHA^ ^ u 


-P 


CD C +J 


cn 






-P -H -H C 


D^ 






c 


O U r3 


•H 5-1 


CI. 5 C 









•H D, a, :3 


D 


5-1 




-H 


03 03 rH 


^ 





Sh 






C D P U 


u 


f3 




^ 


rH rH 


MH 


MH U 


tP 




u 


P U U U 


o 


O 




u 


Ti 


W 


MH 




CO 


o 


O U 


c 


>i 




fC 


m "x:, 


+J 


>i >. 


ro 


•H 


Di O 1 


1 


>i 




i-H 


-P (L) -H 


■H 5h 


Sh rH 


r-\ 




4J 


C 1 1 ^4 


S-i 


+J ^ >, CO 




■H -H a, 


C OJ 


CD a ^ jc: 




(0 


■H >-i ^^ O 


a) 


C -H rH 


a 


w 


cap 


p ^ ^ p -p 


-P 


n 


•H 


W a CL) 4-) 


4J 


fiJ S -H 


E 


-u 


P P u 


E 


E -^ C 


c 


m 


U 


P c c c 


G 


u fd e: 





-H 


u o 


MH P 


P 03 


o 




(U 


C 5 5 O 


a 


r3 M-l fO 


r- 


C 


T5 O 


C C 


C > E 


E 




+J 


J= S-( 


!-i 


> IM 




P 


0) 1 








• • 


O 









o 




•H 1 !h 


!h C 


C C G 


C 


Q) 


td 


rH a ^ 0) 


^ 


I— 1 rH -H 


rH 


rH 


Q. Jh O 


03 


03 03 03 


03 


U 


u 


(B -(-) U -P 


U 


fo !T> -M 


-H 


03 


p a -p 


^ -H 


■H -H -H 


-H 


U 


<d 


4-> -H ra -H 


03 


+J C r-i 


^ 


-P 


u c c 


E ^ 


^3 ^ ID T3 


P 


x: 


^ -H ^ 


iH 


-H P 


c 


O 


u > a 


P 


CD CD O 


CD 





u 


Eh S cq ;S 


P 


£h :/) .'^ 


*~^ 


&H 


O O Ci:: 


S S 


s s s 


tr^t 


CO 








■p 




' 








c 












Q) 




00 


iH 


a\ H 




U 




• 


• 


• • 




Vj 


o 


iH 


1 00 1 


1 cr. o 




(U 


o 


00 


T-i 


CO iH 


w 


(^ 


iH 








-p 












-H 












C 
























>-^ 












M-l 





























ID 


(N 


CN 1 


1 r^ '^ 


S-l 


u 


VO 


<^ 


O 


cr, IT) 








LD 


•^ 


iH 


•^ 


^ 


£ 










e 


E 










p 


D 










s 


s 











I I I I I 



I I I I I 



CM 



O C C 

Uj c c c 



r^ r-- n 



c c en 

O CO (N 

LO iH (N 








ro < 






P- P 






O^. H 






-H « 






O 






-^^ 




CO 


W Cl4 




iH 


U 


iH 




H >- 


iH 


W 


Eh W 




i-q 


W K^ 


4-> 


oa 


H ^ 


U 


<: 


CS: H 


rc 


EH 


w > 


!h 




Eh CO 


Eh 


X 


U H 




H 


S M 


w 


Q 


p 


S 


< < 


w 


W 


1:4 U 


c 


CU 


U 


0) 


04 


t^ 


u 


< 


SING 
TY 





o u 



w (U 
4J -H 
•H 
C 

P 



o 
u 
CJ" o 



CO o 

c ^ 

^ o 

-H a 

rO -P 

-P -H 

o x: 

Eh :s 



t3 a o 

(U -H -H 

•H ql, a 

p u u 

u u o 

u o c 

I I 

1 u u 

U O <D 

CU -P +J 

c c c 

3: o a 

O !h ^H 



U -P U 

fO -H d 

-H £ rH 

m s « 



c 

O 

>H 

u 

ri 
O 
>i 

-P -H 
C -H 
C3 ~ 

r, 

> 

C 
.-i -— I 

-P c 
O -H 
Eh W 



C 
■H 

C g 

•H P 

p 



C7« 

tn C 

C -H 
•H ^ 

S P 

P -H 

rH a 



D.' 



03 



rC O 

>H (U 

O E 
O 

(U W 
E 

O en 

w C 

•H 
U^M 
C U 
•H 03 
J^ -H 
U 
03 W 



03 

^^ 


a 





nH 

03 





rH 0) 
■H S 
= O 

r:3 x: 

•H iH 
4J -H 
rH ^ 
P O 



03 P 
•P U 

o o 



n: n: tn o 



C -H 

•H ^ 

^ o 

U 03 

C3 rH 
rH 

a -H 

•H Qj 

a, p 

p u 

u u 

o o 

I 

1 u 

u o 

c c 

:5 Q) 

o ^ 



o 
o 
u 

u 

Q) 

Cu 

w 

c 
o 
w 
u 

a 

GJ 
Sh 

o 

E 

U Ui 

-P 
•H 

rH C 

o p 



-p 



!h 

P X! 
E 



o 



•P 

-H 

c 
p 

-P o 

• H -H 4-J 
5 P GJ 

\ u ^ -) 

wo c 

C -P O 
I o u 

U 05 

5h O ^ :■) 

O G -P -.0 

:i. ^ c 



o 



W O 

-p 

•H 



o 

-H 
O 4-1 

c 



C '-i 



o o -r: ^ 

^ p -p _) 

E i-H c :: 

p r:; C 

C > E = 



j-i c c c: q 2; 

0) 03 r; oj d ■:; 

^ -H -H -H -H -H 

E 13 TT "^3 T) ^ 

P 0) a a (U J 



LO 



f-i <u '^ 



■3- -T- 5* 5" 



S S 



CO 






u 

5-1 

P 
O 

cn 





-p 






c 






o 


<^ 




o 


• 




u 


o n 




Q) 


o in 


w 


cu 


iH 


+J 






•H 






C 






D 






M-J 











rsi o 


>H 


u 


c ro 


dJ 


(U 


CO ■<:r 


o:; 


Xi 




e 


e 




3 


p 




s 


2 





rOOCM-^LTiOOOO 



■^ CN CM O CD 

ro LD CN 



in 









o 


O 


o 




00 


»X) 


c 


O 


c 


rH 


"* 


(N 


c 


r-- 


00 


'^ 






o 


o 


iH 








00 


r— 1 


fH 








k. 












^ 












r-i 












</></></>• 





ro 


< 






r-- 


C 






CTi 


H 






rH 


Pi 
O 






^ 


►^ 




CTi 


cn 


t^ 




iH 


U 




<N 




H 


>. 


iH 


K 


Eh 


K 




hJ 


W 


H^ 


-P 


CQ 


M 


h^ 


O 


< 


0^ 


H 


fd 


Eh 


K 


> 


u 




Eh 


W 


Eh 


y. 


U 


^ 




H 


< 


S 


W 


C 


or: 


H 


P 




< 


< 


OT 


W 


K 


U 


C 


cu 


u 




(D 


a. 




fc 


U 


< 




o 






M 


>H 






CO 


tH 






D 


H 






O 


u 






K 



























6 






















































































u 




























u 


























d^ 


Q) 
























tT> d^ C 


a, 
























c 


C-H 


























•H 


•HX! 


to 






















CnXJ 


-Q E 


G 






















G 


e 


g P 

























•H 


p 

rH 


P rH 


to 

5h 






















g 


a a. 


(U 


CO 




















D 




rH 


o. 


-p 




















rH 


iH 


.H H 




•H 




















an 


iH (d 


(D 


c 






















fd 


td 


>H 


p 




















.H 




5^ 

























rH 


5h 


U 


g 


to ■!:; 




















fd 





c 

<L) 


U t/3 


P (U 
-H -H -P 




















M 


CD 


(D g 


P 


c a, c 























E 


E 


•H 


P P (U 

























to 


rH C \ M 


+J 


















Q) 


w 


to 


P 


CO 


C 
















n 


B 




cn 


• \ 


C C -P 


CU 
















c 





Cn Cn C 


rH CO 


1 u 


5-1 












^ 


'i; 


p 


CO 


C 


C -H 


E 


CO !h fd 










^ 


13 


o 










•H 


•H X 


^ 


Sh S-i 


to 






en 


O 


0) 


-H 


-H 


^ 


D^^ 


X 


■P 


0) C P 


CO 






+J 


•H 


•H 


a 






C 


U 


fd 


•H ^ 


D. 5 c: 









•H 


a a P 


a 


S-l 


-H 


fd 


fd H 


^ 





^1 






C 


p 


P 


u 





fd 


^ 


rH 


H 


tH 


MH (J 


tn 




W 


P 


u 


U 


u 


u 





U 




'CJ 


to 


MH 




CO 


U 




u 


U 








>i 


fd 


CO 


T3 


-p 


>, >, 


ro 


•H 


Cn 








1 


1 


>i 


H 


A-> 


(D -H 


-H U 


Sh h 


H 




4J 


C 


1 


1 


u 


u 


-P -H >, to 




-H 


•H a 


G 


0) x; 


X 


>. 


CO 


•H 


u 


!h 


o 


o 


C -H .H CJ 


CO 


C 


D^ P 


P x: 


x P p 


-p 


00 


•H 


CO 


o 


a 


-p 


_) 


fd S -H g 


P 


P 


P u 


g 


g rH G 


C 


ro 


^ 


a 


r^ 


r; 


c 


^ 


fd £ 


•H 







MH P 


p fd 







a 





s 


s 


Q) 


o 


fd ^ td ^ 


c 


^ 


U 


c 


C > £ 


g 




+j 


r^^ 








U 


Sh 


> U-l 


p 


Q) 


I 








• • 


u 












O (D 




-H 


1 u 


u c 


C G G 


G 


CU 


Cj 


rH 


a 


^ 


G) 


J ^^^ 


rH H -H rH 


rH 


Q4 


U 


cu fd 


fd fd fd 


fd 


u 


U 


fd 


-M 


U 


-M 


u 


a o^4-i ■<-i 


fd 


P 


a p 


-Q -H 


•H -H -H 


•H 


u 


(d 


+J 


•H 


fd 


-H 


-^ 


+j c: rH jq 


4-J 





c; c 


E ^ 


'D ^ 13 


1: 


p 


x: 





r^ 


rH 


r-* 


H 


H p 





U 


:s 


P CD 


(U CU 


(U 





u 


Eh 


% 


a 


3; 


cq 


Eh C/) ^3^ S 


tH 





« 


2: S 


S 2^ S 


2^ 


C/3 








+J 




c 




0) 




u 




M 




<u 


w 


0^ 


-p 




•H 




c 




D 




M-l 




O 




u 


5-1 


QJ 


c 


Xi 


Xi 


g 


e 


P 


p 


IS 


s 



in 



r- CM CN C^ fH 



in in OM (N 



o ** ^3" in '=3' 



rH-^ I r^cNCNcon i kc kd en en 

in C7> ■^ C rH (N 

<N LO in rH r- in 



(N 









O 


O 


o 




^ 


CX3 


o 


c 


c 


C-, 


in 


CM 


o 


CM 


r~ 


(N 






o 


r- 


a\ 








<^ 


1 — 1 


iH 








est 












CM 












</>■(/>•</>• 





m 


< 






r- 


Q 






CTi 


M 






iH 


o 






V 


i-q 




O 


W 


iu 




CN 


U 




vo 




H 


«. 


iH 


w 


Eh 


W 




1-:! 


CO 


^P 


-U 


CQ 


H 


hJ 


u 


< 


Pi 


H 


rC 


c-^ 


W 


> 


S-i 




Ert 


W 


Eh 


X 


U 


K 




H 


<C 


S 


w 


D 


K 


M 


D 


S 




< 


CO 


W 


o 


c 


CU 


U 




O 


CU 




fa 


u 


< 




o 






H 


>^ 






W 


C-H 






D 


H 






O 


u 

























e 


































































































M 
































iH 






























cn 































Cn CP C 


Q. 




























C 


C -H 






























■H 


-H ^ 


to 


























in 


n 


5 P 





























•H 


P 


P rH 


cn 


























f 


rH 


r-i a. 


u 


























a a 


o 




CO 






















P 




rH 


a. 




-p 






















rH 


rH 


rH rH 






•H 






















CrH 


rH (d 


a 




C 
























fd 


(d 


iH 




P 






















rH 




iH 





























rH 


u 


5^ 


s 


U} 


^ 






















ft 









iH W 


-p 

•H 




•rH 


-p 




















5-1 


o 


Q) 6 


C -P 


r- 


* — t 


G 






















a; 


6 

to 


e 

CI 
to 


■rH 

rH G 

o p 


P 


P 

o 
u 


iH 


•p 

c 












TJ 






e 




D^ 


• \ 


r;| 





-P 


(I) 












c 









cn 


cn C 


r-^, to 


C 


1 





54 










T^ -ri 


p 






CO 


c 


C -H 


p: 


CQ 


u 


fd 








^ 'd 


a o 











•H 


•H ^ 


-c 


IH 


o 


iH 


to 






CO a 


(U 


•H -H 


S-< 






a^^ 


ri4 U 


•P 


O 


G 


-p 


to 






-P -H 


-H 


C Q. 








G 


u 


fd 


•H 54 


Q. 


5 


G 









•H a 


O. P D 


^1 






-H 


fd 


fd r-i 


:5 










Sh 






C 


p 


u u 


d 






- ^ 


r-\ 


r-{ 


I4H 


UH 




u 


tT> 




CO 


D U 


o 


u o 


d) 






u 




1> 


CO 





'4H 






CO 


o 


u 


u 





>> 






fd 


to 


^ o 


■P 







>, >1 


(^ 


■H 


cn 





1 1 




>i 




rH 


-p 


CD -H 


•H U 


Sh 




rH 


rH 




-P 


C 1 


1 


u u 


-p 


M >, CO 




•H 


-H a 


C G 





o 


^ 


r-" 




cn 


•H !-i 


u 


o a 


C 


-H iH 


0) 


to 


c 


CI, P 


P ^ 


X! 


p 


-P 


+J 


CO 


•H 


CO O 


QJ 


+J 4J 


d 


E -H 


e 


+J 


p 


P o 


5 


S 


r-l 


c 


G 


CO 


s^ 


p n 


C 


c c 


u 


fd e 





•H 




u u 


^ p 


P 


fd 










Q) 


5 


5^ 


a a 


fd 


M-j fd 


r- 


c 


^ 


O 


C C 


C 


> 


e 


e 




4J 


^ 





!^ 5^ 


> 


m 




p 


o 


1 












• • 


O 










a 


Q) 




•H 


1 u 


5h C 


c 


G 


G 


G 


o 


Id 


■-1 a 


r-J-. 


o ^ 


iH 


M -H 


i—\ 


rH 


CI, !-J O 


o fd 


fd 


fd 


fd 


fd 





H 


fO 4-) 


U 


4J O 


fd 


D^-P 


•H 


fd 


P 


O 4-> 


^ -H 


■H 


•H 


■H 


-H 


5-1 


fC 


-p -H 


rci 


-H (t 


+J 


C '-'• 


X5 


-p 


u 


c c 


E ^ 




^3 


'd 


-■d 


P 


x: 


o _■: 


r-l 


X: rH 


C 


•-H 13 








o 


5 O 


P o 


o 








(U 





u 


Eh ^ 


a 


[2 rq 


r^- 


wO r2 


^ 


Eh 


o 


O P^ 


r~^ tr^ 


^JLi 


S 


g 


S 


CO 








-p 












c 












<D 




CNJ 


f-{ 






U 




• 


• 






U 


o 


<N 


t^ 1 


1 O 1 




Q) 


o 


a> 




o 


03 


CU 


nH 






iH 


4J 












•H 












C 












D 












iw 





























LO 


IT) 


vi; 1 


1 "^ 1 


u 


U 


•«T 


a. 


•^ 


in 


o 





VD 


in 




vi; 


XI 


^ 










g 


g 










D 


13 










s 


2 











CN <N CM 



I O O O I 



I iH iH r-i 1 







o 


o 


o 


m 


'^ 


o 


o 


o 


^ 


en 


o 


n 


o 






o 


vo 


o 






VD 


rH 


CM 






^ 










<N 










CM 










</></}• -to- 





n <; 






r- C 






CTl M 






rH « 






O 






^^ 




rH 


W fa 




fN 


u 


r^ 




M - 


rH 


w 


B fa 




ij 


W J 


4-) 


CQ 


M K^ 


u 


< 


cr; M 


fd 


E^ 


w > 


>-( 




Eh CO 


&H 


x: 


u u 




H 


< z 


w 


c 


K H 


p 


2 


< < 


w 


w 


M-i o 


c 


c^ 


u 


a 


Dw 


fa 


u 


< 


:OUSING 
CITY 































£ 








































O 

















































































u 








































u 






































d^ 


0) 




































en en C 


a 




































C 


C-H 






































•H 


•H X5 


to 


































CnXl 


o g 


c 


































c 


g 


g P 


o 


































•H 


P 

rH 


P rH 
rH O^ 


u 


































^ 


a 


a 


Q) 






CO 




























p 




rH 


a 






-p 




























rH 


rH 


rH rH 








•H 




























ClirH 


rH (d 


(U 






G 






























fO 


(d 


!-i 






p 




























rH 




Sh 





































rH 


U 


^ 


g 




cn 


^ 




























fC 








JH 


tn 


4-> 
-H 




•H 


4-) 


























Sh 


(D 


O g 





p 


G 


a 


G 


























C 


e 


g 




-H 


p 


p 


a 




























c 


'J) 


rH 


c \ 


u 


!^ 


4J 
























<U 


w 


m 


O 


p 


cn 


o 




G 
















t3 








g 




cn 


• 


\ 


G 





p 


q; 
















c 











en 


cn d 


rH 


w 





1 


u 


SH 












1? 


^ 


p 








w 


C 


C-H 




g 


cn 


u 


fd 










13 


■w 


c; 


^ 













•H 


•H A^ 


x: 





u 


Q) 


u 


cn 






w 


a 


(U 


•H 


■H 


^4 








Cn^ 


X o 


-P 





<D 


G 


p 


cn 






-P 


-H 


-H 


C: 


r^ 










C 


U 


o (d 


-H 


u 


a 5 


c 


O 






•H 


a, a p 


P 


S-l 








•H 


fd 


fd <-{ 


5 












u 






C 


p 


P 


u 


U 


(Z 








M 


rH 


'-i 




M-( 


144 




o 


Di 




OT 


P 


u 


U 


u 


O 


o 








u 




Ti 


W 





O 


4-1 






00 


U 




u 


o 





c 


>. 








td 


W 


'a o 


4-> 









>1 


>i 


ro 


-H 


Cn 








1 


1 




>i 






rH 


P 


a -H 


•H 


u 


^4 




rH 


rH 




-P 


G 


1 


1 


S-l 


!h 


4J 


tH 


>i 


W 




•H 


•H a. 


C 


G 


GJ 


0) 


/r^ 


r^ 




M 


•H 


u 


u 


o 


C 


^'J 


•H 


rH 


o 


W 


c 


a p 


P ^ 


O 


p 


P 


+3 


n 


-H 


W 


Q) 


a 


-p 


4-1 


r: 


c; 


•H 


6 


4J 


p 


P u 




g 


g 


rH 


c 


G 


ro 


}-< 


D 


P 


c 


c 


r; 


' 'J 


fj 


£ 





-H 




u u 


•4-1 


P 


P 


fd 










OJ 





:s 


5 


a 







■-H 


03 


r-* 


C 


'0 


U 





G 


G 


> 


fc 


g 




+J 


.-^ 








S-l 


!-l 


> 




M-l 




P 


o 


1 














• • 


U 














O 




GJ 




•H 


1 u 


u 


G 


G 


G 


G 


G 


Q) 


(0 


rH 


G) 


^ 


a 


'.■ 


<H 


• — i 


•H 


-H 


rH 


a 


u o 


G) 


fd 


(d 


fd 


fd 


fd 


U 


M 


fU 


-M 


u 


+j 


U 


ra 


01 


P 


-H 


fO 


p 


0) -P 


^ 


-H 


•H 


•H 


-H 


•H 


P 


td 


-P 


•H 


ft; 


•H 


t-; 


4-: 


c 


rH 


JQ 


4-1 


u 


G G 


g 


15 


^ 


■^ 


TJ 


n3 


P 


x: 





x: 


rH 


r- 


rH 


C 


■H 


P 








u 


ii O 


P 


O 


Q) 


o 


G) 


G) 


o 


u 


&H 


ui 


CQ 


>^ 


;n 


E-i 


C/2 


^ 


-^ 


£h 


o o « 


^ 


»^ 


X 


^ 


s 


*^'-i 


to 



00 



1 



u 


oc o c 


03 (^ ^ 


n ^ f^ c^ 


CO vc w m 


1^ o r^ m 


T ro i/> ^■ 


m a 


VT w 


c c^ a. a-^ 


C% -"O 00 I^ 


(^ r^ r' in 


^r -^ <N (N 


.I 00 r* «x- 






C 


oc c c 


O 0-> <J^ CT\ 


CT» c^ o o^ 


O 0^ C\ O^ 


Ot m a. ff- 


O^ CO 00 00 


CD a 


GO r^ 


(0 ^ 


iH^ rH <~ 


r-t 














4J l/^ 



















00 ^ m vc 



inr^c>**^ rHp^^or^ 



O^0D c fM 

(Hrsi ro TT 

\C K£> Ki. \c 



o m p* ■— I 
in ^ (N in 
^U ViT >£ vc 



.-( c^ r^ m: 

m ."N ^ ^a* 

VC Vi. "X vc 



r-t fN i-H Psi 

fM m ^T in 
-^ ^c \i, VD 



ro o ^ m 

ro CM CM CM 
VD Vt *X- Vt 



vc^(Nin Qoao.- 

(NjmfMfNJ int-^^-.- 



m L■^ in vc 
n L"! rr in 
vt: w vo "X) 



ininmy; ^T'erin^r 



o o 



00 tX) V£ -^ 



C. fO y: u. 



in (M r- p^ 

04 r-. 00 CO 



T r- vi. ^r 
00 i£ u. in 



o 'N <>j i^ o^ -a n c 



CT\ i^ r^ u> 
o c o o 



PO (N .-i 

o o o o 



o c c c 



u 

w 
o; 

CO < 

M Q 

Q w 

s o 

O hJ 

M Ct. 

6- 

Su 

E iJ 

3 M 
2 > 

a m 

b. Z 

O M 

< 
u 
< o 

E- 
2 > 

W E-< 
U M 
IK O 
b, 



00 ^3- ffi I^ o m c, ^r 
^«y^m \cirtinin 






tN in vf o 

CM (N <N (N 

kC vo vc *.c 



^i? i- r^ cn; 



V£i l£ U) V^ 






J^ H 


yD c^, in ^3- 


(N C .- 


fO 

c a« 






inoo p^ r* 


r- v£j -^ 


•H q; fo 


.-H 




S OS — 







c 00 r; c 

T <*i fO ro 



CD c: r* r* 

CM CN CM (N 



rg CM fM r- 

<N CN <NI ^ 



r^ in vi, in 

r-l i-H c o 



fo {N CN r> 
o c o c 



ff> ^r CD c 
^T in ■^ w 



r^ LO IT ro 
in ro r; ro 



L-i O 00 00 
LO in »-H in 

Vi V^ Vi, (^ 



'TfNroro i^t^^LO 



o c o o 



r^ a* o> <H 

fM fN rH tN 
KC ^ \D '^D 



o o c o 



o o o o 



coo.— lOi ror^oiH 
rjroro'g' ^■■^mtn 



J^ -H 


fN v:: \£! ro 


-^ 'H IT. fN 


^ w C^ c 


c: cc ^ LO 


fN C: C CN 


CO r^ LO in 


rn fN 


fl 
















m vc in fN 


O CO »^ U3 


IT in *: --T 


fo r; fN •-! 


.-H rH ^ O 


c c c o 


o c o o 


03 (U <N 


<N ^ ,-( .-^ 


,— , 












s: c: — 

















o o o c 



o o c o 



o o o o 



c t. 



r^ TT CO V£ 


o CO c in 


^ en — o 


CO m tn " 


rsi ri (N ro 


f-l C^ T KC 


'*» in c* c 


LO T T LO 


v£ ^ T in 


IT -O O -"f 


CO fN ■^ rj 


in fN ro fN 


^ 'i Ci (N 


"0 ro M r. 


O VC O ^i 


^ ^ ^C \^ 


^i ^ >j; V£> 


o vi, >i; o 


^£) o vc ^ 


^C ^ ^C "C 


O Vi ,D i 



t^ c: o •— 



-T fN PO O 


r^ O ^ ro 


«n ■<a' -^ -T 


T LO in in 


\^ \£) K£, \£> 


\D \Si \D yc 



.-H ra -^ 

-H t; -^ 
o -H — 



r- ^ r- oc 

rj rsj ^ o 



r* p^ ^T ^T 
o o c. c 



*T 'O ro »-t 
C O C- O 



O C O O 



o o o o 



o o o o 



o o o o 



CO c, -O "^ P^ CT ro lO 

>-H i^ -.■ in in L'l f J 'o 



, f J .— rM ' I r I 



uo i^ r- -ro 
r.* r i r J f 1 
'O o Vj •■ 



ro '0 ro -r T 

vL, '3 V£, iJ '^ 



*-» r J 'O T 



J • 

- til ■ 



9? 



r 




(0 





h 


< 


Q. 
< 



< 


q: 
< 

z 


2 IT 


< 

(D 


X 




D 


Q 

Z 
111 


(0 


U 

J 


3 


J 


0. 


0) 


(0 


< 


z 


z 




LJ 


< 











^ E 



CM 






01 



(!) 
Z 


h 

Q 
Z 





Q 
U 

N 
J 
< 

q: 

UJ 

z 







^ Z 

i 

" I i 

u 

I 
I- 



Q 




tr 


U 


(t 


n 





< 








U- 


i 



□ QUI 





SO 






Gainesvillie 



Qualitative Analysis Of Housing 
eomlitions - 1975 



DATE DUE 



BORROWERS NAME 






//vy-7^- 



J^■■s-7^ 



2^M.J;;^.^-^^^^^^^ 



J 



/2-S-?^ 






/^'J^}-7^ 



I